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 33
    More: Amusing, young earth creationism, Pat Robertson, Hemant Mehtas, Hemant Mehta, Ken Ham, creation museum, Christian Broadcasting Network, fundies  
•       •       •

6694 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-28 07:54:07 PM
2 votes:
Even Pat Robertson understands, to a point, that God is not conducting an Orwellian 2+2=5 loyalty test. Faith is about believing in more than can be seen, not about denying what has been seen.
2012-11-28 04:22:08 PM
2 votes:

burndtdan: God created and manipulates the universe


Which is still "god of the gaps bullshiat".

Moving magic from the point of abiogenesis back to the point of singularity expansion doesn't change squat except the amount of known history about which you are wrong. In the end, you are still, however, wrong. Magic did not create the universe, did not set in motion, and plays no role in its machinations. Playing devil's advocate for these people is impossible because you're just choosing the amount of time about which they're wrong.

Unless there's just nobody else available, there's no real reason to consider the opinions of people who say "god flicked the singularity and that started everything else, but I accept all the science after that point" anymore than you would people who say "god pissed in the dirt and made muck men out of the result, but I accept all the science after that point".

They're both wrong and they can both be easily dismissed and replaced instead with people who don't choose to be flat-out wrong from some arbitrary point in time back.
2012-11-28 02:16:35 PM
2 votes:

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 01:47:53 PM
2 votes:

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 01:34:28 PM
2 votes:

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


A loophole for fundies.
2012-11-28 07:09:31 PM
1 votes:

MrEricSir: They gave up on that teaching centuries ago. Turns out not being an asshole isn't conducive to spreading your religion.


And some inside the Catholic Church kind of tried to convince the rest of the Catholics to return to that, but they mostly mock them (Jesuits) or just ask for their tasty beer (Trappists).
2012-11-28 07:09:17 PM
1 votes:

eraser8: Son of Thunder: If only there were people who dedicated their careers to questions like this, who earned PhDs in fields like theology and biblical studies

Those are basically the sciences of explaining why the Bible doesn't really mean what it really says...which speaks to my point: when the Bible can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, it doesn't mean anything at all.


No, precisely the opposite. They are about understanding what the bible actually says. Dismissing entire fields of scholarly inquiry because they produce answers that are too complex to explain to your average seventh-grader is exactly the kind of self-justifying anti-intellectualism that young earth creationists engage in.
2012-11-28 07:06:59 PM
1 votes:

Ego edo infantia cattus: [www.glennbeck.com image 600x396]

They grow up so fast.


And we live in a world where that is actually more than just a Bad Religion song.
2012-11-28 06:22:02 PM
1 votes:

xynix: abb3w: Nohow, it's an inaccurate minimization to say Leviticus means "nothing" to "modern" Christians.

From a historical outlook it's interesting and puts some things into perspective from a Christian standpoint. However it's outdated. The "revealed" knowledge of the New Testament confirms this and it's excluded as we're gentiles and not Jews. Fundies just blithely choose to ignore this fact or have no knowledge of this fact which means they have little knowledge of their own religion. They choose to use outdated arguments for their own personal distaste/hatred/whatever.

FitzShivering: /really smart dude and a good hearted guy, who treats me like a human even though I share none of his beliefs, which is more than can be said for a lot of people out there in the religious argument land

The church I go to follows this doctrine. I have a magnet on my car that says "Love God, Love People" and it's the slogan if you will of our church. Gay people, Muslims, Atheists, etc are all our people and we're to love them as such. None of Christs teachings were exclusive but mostly inclusive which leaves those of us that are Christians with the "wiggle room" to accept and include people into our faith regardless of lifestyle. I realize I'm one of the few Christians who comment on this site and that's fine with me because the majority of your opinions are of value to me regardless of whatever religions background or affiliation you have.

The one thing that many "Christians" fail to realize among various political topics is that Christ was very clear that the government perform only government acts. So even if Christ were to be against Gay marriage it's not relevant at the government level. Same with abortion which I'm strongly opposed to but feel should be legal for those who aren't of my faith. In the church there are mechanisms in place to help girls/women who might want to have an abortion. There are many children adopted because churches have stepped in and helped those girl ...


The fabled "rational christian" appears. There are so few anymore. They're like unicorns. Most of the ones you hear from are Bible-thumping douchenozzles with too little to say and too much time to say it, coupled with a sprinkling of hate.
2012-11-28 05:49:25 PM
1 votes:

FitzShivering: So, in short, I agree with you.


"All I know is what I read in the newspapers social psychology literature." You might find Altemeyer and Hunsberger's Amazing Conversions: why some turn to faith & others abandon religion an interesting read.

FitzShivering: To be fair, while I am an atheist, a very good priest has now answered those very same questions in a way that likely would have kept me in the fold if I hadn't spent so many years examining all of my beliefs


Ayep. There are some smart people, who have actually come up with chains of reasoning able to help keep the belief supported and doubt at bay. However....

There's an aphorism in computer science, by Brian Kernighan: "Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?" Obviously, the problem becomes even worse when you're trying to debug code written by someone more clever than you are. Less obviously, there's some underlying basis to the observation in mathematical proof theory (although the factor of two is sometimes horribly conservative), which in turn applies to reasoning in general.

So, many of the religious "attitude bolstering" chains were developed by the sharpest thinkers of the day -- which suggests, some of the flaws/bugs may be very hard for more ordinary people to see.

Of course, this observation actually makes for a pretty clever piece of atheist attitude bolstering itself....
2012-11-28 05:31:05 PM
1 votes:
Rationalists have been expecting for 150 years that they could convince Believers just by showing them the facts.

But it doesn't work. Emotions trump rational thinking.

Creationists have a deep emotional commitment - they want to believe literal Genesis because if part of the bible isn't true, then how can you trust the bit that says Jesus will save us.

You can't shift that belief with facts - you have to figure out ways to appeal to their emotions.

One way is to show them how other Christians have coped with new scientific ideas Sometimes Science Is Right

And another is to make the point that Robertson is making - when your kids grow up and leave the bubble of your church and family, and find out that they've been fed a lot of BS about evo, they will question all the other stuff you've force-fed them.

And the fundies are open to this argument, because all their churches lose significant numbers of kids when they reach their 20's, and they have no idea how to staunch those losses.
2012-11-28 05:23:01 PM
1 votes:

eraser8: Marine1: Problem is, everything means what we want it to mean. We're humans.

I'll agree to that. So, maybe we should stop pretending there's anything divine in the Bible. Or, at least, we should stop pretending the Bible is any more divine than anything written by Wittgenstein or Proust.

All are the products of human imagination, so far as we can tell. And, none -- again, so far as we can tell -- was inspired by any supernatural agent.


It's divine to me, in ways that make sense to me.

I mean, I'm pro-choice (lawfully, pro-life philosophically), pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, and for teaching evolution in classrooms. I'm dating a Jew and know there's somewhere between a 0 and .00000000000000000000001% chance she'd ever convert; same goes for me. If people can be like that and be religious... why not let them be?
2012-11-28 05:19:30 PM
1 votes:
I've had two theories for Pat:

1) He's been suffering from his version of senility by gaining mental acuity. It can't go down; it can only go up.

2) He wants a less harsh look in the history books, and thinks this and other recent "revelations" will spare him his dues. 


Either way, he sucks and the world will rejoice in his death.
2012-11-28 05:04:17 PM
1 votes:

xynix: Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.


Empirical data suggests that the question of whether the Bible is indeed the Word Of God, and the hypocrisy of nominally religious people -- which would appear to potentially include how they selectively emphasize some passages and ignore others -- do indeed serve as potentially significant triggers of religious doubt. So do questions about tolerance of homosexuality and the role of women -- both covered in Leviticus.

Contrariwise, while such triggers appear mainly a necessary step, they are nowhere near a sufficient one. Attitudes on authority seem to play a large role, as does the decision between whether to seek out competing ideas or simply look for arguments confirming one's preexisting beliefs.

Nohow, it's an inaccurate minimization to say Leviticus means "nothing" to "modern" Christians.
2012-11-28 04:31:14 PM
1 votes:

xynix: Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.


Except when Christians like to quote it to justify their hatred of homosexuals.

Yeah, Leviticus is a pretty archaic and obsolete text with minimal relevance to living in the 21st century. However, when churches cite it as a reason for their anti-LBGT doctrines, it gets hauled back into the game, and the foolishness of obeying just one law on that list when ignoring the very long list of other restrictions there becomes apparent.
2012-11-28 04:26:07 PM
1 votes:

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Unless there's just nobody else available, there's no real reason to consider the opinions of people who say "god flicked the singularity and that started everything else, but I accept all the science after that point" anymore than you would people who say "god pissed in the dirt and made muck men out of the result, but I accept all the science after that point".


Nonsense. God held the pattern of the universe in his mind while in Chaos, and the individual philotes which exist there assumed that pattern. Hence how God made us "in his image."

/What? It could be true.
2012-11-28 04:26:02 PM
1 votes:

Jeremysbrain: Young Earth creationism is not a widely held belief despite what some may have everyone believe.


Gallup tends to overestimate it.

The Gallup poll only gives three options. There was a poll back in 2002 by Mason-Dixon for the Cleveland Plain Dealer at the height of the "Intelligent Design" controversy in Ohio, which used a five-option model. Essentially: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, and Atheistic Evolution. While it was only in the state of Ohio, that state has been a pretty good proxy for the country as a whole for quite some time. The ratios were (rounding a bit) approximately 30:15:15:25:15. The time-nearest Gallup numbers for the three-way breakdown were 45:37:12. Thus, the Gallup poll probably lumps the YEC and OEC crowd together, and the ID and TE crowd together. Nonetheless, that's still circa 30% YEC; the CPD question hasn't been used since, but Gallup's given the poll repeatedly, and their numbers haven't shifted all that much.

In short: a belief held by circa 30% of the country does still seem to constitute "widely held".
2012-11-28 04:19:58 PM
1 votes:

abb3w: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Well, it may be he's trying to indicate that there are still answers out there that science hasn't come up with or hasn't yet validated. But it is a very interesting word choice, given how "revealed knowledge" from God is usually religiously considered privileged from further question.


Quite simply put: Revelation of knowledge is only derived from those given from God to humans.

In Christianity this might be called "revealed theology" and in science it would be considered "revealed science."

In this case Pat is indicating that God has revealed to us that the world is much older than 6000 years old and we need to pay attention to that. Not paying attention to things that God reveals to us goes directly against what we're supposed to be doing, which is following the will of God. In this case it shows that the Bible is a living manual of life with God and not a static doctrine which should be universally followed.

Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament. Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian. God revealed Christ to us and that is now our doctrine and it's a mistake to lean back on the Old Testament - leave that to the Muslims and the Jews.
2012-11-28 04:08:52 PM
1 votes:
Of course, that's only true because Pat Robertson is older than dirt.

He doesn't believe in Young Earth theology because if the Earth were young, he'd personally remember the Creation.
2012-11-28 04:04:51 PM
1 votes:

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?


If only there were people who dedicated their careers to questions like this, who earned PhDs in fields like theology and biblical studies, becoming experts in Greek and Hebrew, examining the culture and literature of the context in which the bible was written to better understand the literary structures and styles of the times. If only these people wrote academic-level books about topics like these, and occasionally wrote popular-level books so that nonspecialists could engage with these kinds of issues. Then you might have somewhere to go for guidance as you ask these questions.

/sarcasm, just in case someone's sarcastrometer is broken
2012-11-28 03:50:19 PM
1 votes:
Young Earth creationism is not a widely held belief despite what some may have everyone believe.

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" 2 Peter 3:8
2012-11-28 03:35:12 PM
1 votes:
www.conspiracyplanet.com
2012-11-28 03:28:31 PM
1 votes:

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


Well, it may be he's trying to indicate that there are still answers out there that science hasn't come up with or hasn't yet validated. But it is a very interesting word choice, given how "revealed knowledge" from God is usually religiously considered privileged from further question.

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: 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.

Silverstaff: This post from May 27, 2012 is the last known post of his I could find.


Check his profile; there's a link to the latest post he made (comment c77467919, thread 7157417), which would suggest that, yes, he's moved on.

burndtdan: 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.


Actually, in so far as science starts with "experience", without making a prior philosophical distinction between physical versus spiritual, it put God squarely in hot water.
2012-11-28 03:24:10 PM
1 votes:
"You know, the world's twelve-thousand years old, and dinosaurs existed in that time, you'd think it would've been mentioned in the farking bible at some point. "And o, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw. And o, the disciples did run a-shrieking 'What a big farking lizard, Lord.' But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus' paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a Loch for oh so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat farking families and their fat dollar bills. And O Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you, Lord."

/aw, comon Bill
2012-11-28 03:22:18 PM
1 votes:

Marine1: Ed Grubermann: 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.

Oh teh noes.

/everyone is

eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: 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

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.


The issue isn't with the 'advice' parts it's with the 'narrative' parts.

Which of these bits are literal and which metaphorical

Creation story
Burning Bush
Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt
Story of Job
Daniel in the Lion's Den
Crucifixion
Virgin Birth
Journey to Nazareth
Samuel's hair

See the issue?
2012-11-28 02:31:24 PM
1 votes:

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 02:25:18 PM
1 votes:

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 02:24:16 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:17 PM
1 votes:
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 01:59:44 PM
1 votes:

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 01:55:18 PM
1 votes:
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 01:21:04 PM
1 votes:
Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?
2012-11-28 01:14:59 PM
1 votes:
Wow... even he gets it.

Your move, dumbasses.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report