If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patheos)   Young Earth creationism is too ridiculous for even Pat Robertson   (patheos.com) divider line 193
    More: Amusing, young earth creationism, Pat Robertson, Hemant Mehtas, Hemant Mehta, Ken Ham, creation museum, Christian Broadcasting Network, fundies  
•       •       •

6693 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-28 01:14:59 PM
Wow... even he gets it.

Your move, dumbasses.
 
2012-11-28 01:21:04 PM
Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?
 
2012-11-28 01:23:39 PM
Pat Robertson is mellowing a bit in his old age.
 
2012-11-28 01:33:47 PM
Or maybe Pat Robertson is just not ridiculous enough for Young Earth creationism.

Betcha didn't think about that, did ya!
 
2012-11-28 01:34:28 PM

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


A loophole for fundies.
 
2012-11-28 01:34:37 PM

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Humans aren't smart enough to know things so god puts it in their heads instead just 'cause he's such a great guy.

More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.
 
2012-11-28 01:34:50 PM
scannersexplodinghead.gif
 
2012-11-28 01:41:27 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Humans aren't smart enough to know things so god puts it in their heads instead just 'cause he's such a great guy.

More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.


So basically:

1) God created all things
2) Science is a thing
3) Therefore, God created science?
 
2012-11-28 01:41:54 PM

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Yes, there is.
Unless you can prove otherwise?
 
2012-11-28 01:42:22 PM
What Robertson is admitting is that the Bible is not literally true.

The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.
 
2012-11-28 01:43:17 PM
Broken clock.
 
2012-11-28 01:44:42 PM

eraser8: What Robertson is admitting is that the Bible is not literally true.

The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.


Or the effects of multiple translations across numerous languages over the centuries. Sometimes directed by self-interested institutions.
 
2012-11-28 01:45:02 PM

Arkanaut: Vegan Meat Popsicle: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Humans aren't smart enough to know things so god puts it in their heads instead just 'cause he's such a great guy.

More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.

So basically:

1) God created all things
2) Science is a thing
3) Therefore, God created science?


4) Man destroys God with science
5) Man creates dinosaurs
6) Dinosaurs eat man
7) Woman inherits the earth
 
2012-11-28 01:45:07 PM

eraser8: The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.


Duh. That's his job. You figure that out by listening to him and the only way you get to continue listening to him tell you exactly what is metaphorical and what is literal is by sending him money. Lots and lots of money.
 
2012-11-28 01:46:08 PM

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Science that jives with his interpretation of the Bible.
 
2012-11-28 01:46:26 PM
www.glennbeck.com

They grow up so fast.
 
2012-11-28 01:46:34 PM

Sleeping Monkey: Broken clock.


Digital or Analog?
 
2012-11-28 01:47:53 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: They grow up so fast.


Ha! WRONG!!!

I don't see any elephants or a giant tortoise under that thing, so it's obviously fraudulent.
 
2012-11-28 01:50:11 PM

This About That: WTF is "revealed science"?


OK, I get it. Whatever those scientist guys might think they figured out, it was really God putting another tiny piece of the puzzle into their heads. God sure likes to mess with our heads, doesn't he?
 
2012-11-28 01:50:54 PM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Sleeping Monkey: Broken clock.

Digital or Analog?


Does it matter?
 
2012-11-28 01:51:50 PM
Not all that new for Robertson: "Genesis was never intended as a science textbook."

Doesn't mean he's not an asshole.
 
2012-11-28 01:54:28 PM
It feels really weird realizing that someone like Pat Robertson is actually making more sense than some people out there, like that douchecanoe Ken Ham.
 
2012-11-28 01:55:18 PM
It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."
 
2012-11-28 01:58:20 PM

NutznGum: scannersexplodinghead.gif



Bevets may look something like that right about now.
 
2012-11-28 01:59:08 PM
So Pat Robertson believes in science more than about half of the GOP in congress.
 
2012-11-28 01:59:44 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: NutznGum: scannersexplodinghead.gif


Bevets may look something like that right about now.


He's too busy being i drunk what in another thread.
 
2012-11-28 02:00:55 PM
No one has invoked Bevets yet?

Wow.
 
2012-11-28 02:11:18 PM

meat0918: It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."


Fossils were aged and placed into the earth by the devil. Like on Pawn Stars where a guy brings in a "really old" pistol only to have Rick tell him it was made to look that way and it was really made in the early 2000s.
 
2012-11-28 02:14:04 PM

Diagonal: No one has invoked Bevets yet?

Wow.


It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.
 
2012-11-28 02:16:35 PM

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Revelation is a religious concept that there is a third form of knowledge (in addition to the classical forms, a priori/self-evident knowledge and learned/acquired knowledge gained through experience) in which one gains knowledge by directly connecting with an ideal abstract form, rather than figuring the knowledge out by logic or observation.

It was pretty popular with Christian philosophers pre-enlightenment when they were struggling to figure out Greek philosophy and not ever quite getting it, but it's rarely ever been taken seriously otherwise, even as a method for prophets getting information from God (generally he just talks to people in modern mythology, albeit quietly and to your soul). Robertson's going retro on us, apparently, even for him. Usually he only wants us to go back about 120 years, 500 years is a significantly more impressive leap.
 
2012-11-28 02:16:41 PM

eraser8: What Robertson is admitting is that the Bible is not literally true.


No, he said it didn't take 6000 years, which if anyone ever read the account in Genesis, you would readily see that there is no way from the account given just how many years it took.
Same as it doesn't state the length of time a Day of Creation was.
/not to be confused with 24 hour day, day on different planet, etc, etc...
 
2012-11-28 02:16:47 PM

meat0918: It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."


People do this all the time. You get comfortable in your epistemic bubble and simply ignore everything that conflicts with your version of truth. See also

vaccines and autism
climate change
Karl Rove and the rest of the right wing Monday before the election

and hundreds more. It's called confirmation bias and it's remarkably strong
 
2012-11-28 02:20:16 PM
The secretary at my office tells her daughter that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by the devil to fool non-believers. So, there's that.
 
2012-11-28 02:21:17 PM
I've never understood why God needed to rest on the seventh day. You'd think God would be pretty indefatigable--what with being God and all.
 
2012-11-28 02:23:20 PM

NutznGum: scannersexplodinghead.gif


I of course read that as scanner sex plodinghead.gif
 
2012-11-28 02:24:16 PM

Rev. Skarekroe: Pat Robertson is mellowing a bit in his old age.


Guy's also for legalization of marijuana. Hard to believe, but true.

Basically, if you're against these things... you're more insane than Pat Robertson. And that's not something you want to be.
 
2012-11-28 02:25:18 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.


eraser8: The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.


Though I am an atheist myself, this is actually a very easy subject to play Devil's advocate for (or perhaps God's advocate in this case?):

It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology. Obviously this is what a lot of theists believe, but some have a more naturalist view. God created and manipulates the universe, through natural methods as revealed by science. The specific methods espoused in your religious text of choice are simply the best that the author could come up with, or the best knowledge he had access to. In this way of thinking, if we don't know how it happens yet that doesn't mean a shepherd from thousands of years ago had it right, that just means it's something we haven't figured out yet. Which actually, when you think about it, makes a lot MORE sense; I would hope that an omnipotent and omniscient being's methods were a little more complicated than the shiat in the Bible.

This view removes God from the corporeal machinations of the universe and instead places him as an incorporeal being that sets things in motion, which proceed along natural methods as dictated by the physical laws of the universe he created. This also makes more sense because the Bible says that the universe was created by God's word, which would to me suggest that any further action God took would express itself as a natural extension of what he already created. In both cases the will of God would be visible to us simply as the way the universe acts.

This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an atheist. Frankly, if God does exist, it would be absurd for him to expect us to believe it.
 
2012-11-28 02:26:37 PM

Diogenes: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

A loophole for fundies.


Revealed Science: When scientistians show that the earth is much older than we can easily comprehend, that reveals the infinite majesty of the all-mighty.

Secret Science: When scientistians show documented examples of naturally developed homosexual behavior among other species, examples of evolution in a modern framework, or that hurricanes and tornadoes are not caused by God's Wrath on teh gays, or that election results can be accurate calculated using statisticals; thats something the fundies would prefer was kept secret.
 
2012-11-28 02:28:03 PM

DubyaHater: The secretary at my office tells her daughter that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by the devil to fool non-believers. So, there's that.


controversy.wearscience.com(link).
 
2012-11-28 02:31:24 PM

Kurmudgeon: No, he said it didn't take 6000 years, which if anyone ever read the account in Genesis, you would readily see that there is no way from the account given just how many years it took.
Same as it doesn't state the length of time a Day of Creation was.


If a "day" in Genesis isn't a literal day, then the Bible is not literally true. In that case, "day" becomes either poetry or metaphor. And, we're still left wondering what parts of the Bible are literal and which shouldn't be taken so seriously.
 
2012-11-28 02:31:34 PM

burndtdan: Vegan Meat Popsicle: More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.

eraser8: The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.

Though I am an atheist myself, this is actually a very easy subject to play Devil's advocate for (or perhaps God's advocate in this case?):

It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology. Obviously this is what a lot of theists believe, but some have a more naturalist view. God created and manipulates the universe, through natural methods as revealed by science. The specific methods espoused in your religious text of choice are simply the best that the author could come up with, or the best knowledge he had access to. In this way of thinking, if we don't know how it happens yet that doesn't mean a shepherd from thousands of years ago had it right, that just means it's something we haven't figured out yet. Which actually, when you think about it, makes a lot MORE sense; I would hope that an omnipotent and omniscient being's methods were a little more complicated than the shiat in the Bible.

This view removes God from the corporeal machinations of the universe and instead places him as an incorporeal being that sets things in motion, which proceed along natural methods as dictated by the physical laws of the universe he created. This also makes more sense because the Bible says that the universe was created by God's word, which would to me suggest that any further action God took would express itself as a natural extension of what he already created. In both cases the will of God would be visible to us simply as the way the universe acts.

This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an atheist. ...


The other side of this is that God IS the natural world, both known and unknown. That's the belief I hold as a Christian.
 
2012-11-28 02:31:36 PM

burndtdan: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an atheist. Frankly, if God does exist, it would be absurd for him to expect us to believe it.


I should clarify that it puts God outside the physical world we can experience, which puts the belief in God squarely in the realm of spiritual experience (or lack thereof). This does remove belief entirely from the realm of science.
 
2012-11-28 02:31:51 PM
Also too ridiculous for the bible.
 
2012-11-28 02:33:18 PM

djkutch: I've never understood why God needed to rest on the seventh day. You'd think God would be pretty indefatigable--what with being God and all.


Well, sparring with Chuck Norris on days 1 thru 6 will take its toll.. even on God.

Got to hand it to Chuck though.. He's a good guy letting God win.
 
2012-11-28 02:34:55 PM

burndtdan: It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology.


I'm not technically addressing the "god of the gaps" argument. I'm posing a very simple question: if any part of the Bible can be taken as anything less than literal (that is, less that true), how can we know that any of it is true? And, who is to decide what's strict and true and what just poetic license?
 
2012-11-28 02:36:05 PM

Marine1: The other side of this is that God IS the natural world, both known and unknown. That's the belief I hold as a Christian.


I'd say they are different ways of saying the same thing. But that also explains why as an atheist, I have no problem with theism. I have a problem with scientific illiteracy or dogmas that lead to bigotry (from any source, religious or otherwise), but I can no more prove God doesn't exist than someone else can prove he does, so all I can say is which one I find more likely.
 
2012-11-28 02:36:56 PM

eraser8: burndtdan: It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology.

I'm not technically addressing the "god of the gaps" argument. I'm posing a very simple question: if any part of the Bible can be taken as anything less than literal (that is, less that true), how can we know that any of it is true? And, who is to decide what's strict and true and what just poetic license?


Live it. Stuff that is true, is true. Stuff that you find is false... is false.

What I've found is that the truths (at least in the Gospels) are worth finding and following.

YMMV.
 
2012-11-28 02:39:37 PM

eraser8: Kurmudgeon: No, he said it didn't take 6000 years, which if anyone ever read the account in Genesis, you would readily see that there is no way from the account given just how many years it took.
Same as it doesn't state the length of time a Day of Creation was.

If a "day" in Genesis isn't a literal day, then the Bible is not literally true. In that case, "day" becomes either poetry or metaphor. And, we're still left wondering what parts of the Bible are literal and which shouldn't be taken so seriously.


Now, you stop persecuting that poor man with your logic and critical thinking skills.
 
2012-11-28 02:39:54 PM

Marine1: Live it. Stuff that is true, is true. Stuff that you find is false... is false.

What I've found is that the truths (at least in the Gospels) are worth finding and following.


Then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean
 
2012-11-28 02:40:57 PM

Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...


But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report