 |
|
|
|
 Pat Robertson: "There was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible."
November 29th, 2012
04:04 PM ET
Pat Robertson challenges creationismBy Dan Merica, CNN Washington (CNN) – 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. Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution. The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth. Ussher’s work, from the mid-1600s, is widely cited by creationists as evidence that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Answer in Genesis, the famed Christian creationist ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, cites Ussher as proof of Earth’s age. They describe the archbishop as “a brilliant scholar who had very good reasons for his conclusions concerning the date of creation.” For Christians who read the creation account in Genesis literally, the six days in the account are strictly 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years. Most scientists, however, agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old. The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Charles Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution. The question about Earth’s age has been in the news recently. Earlier this month, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that provoked the ire of liberal blogs and left the door open to creationism. “I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told GQ’s Micheal Hainey. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.” - CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report. soundoff (4,408 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next »
« Previous entryWhat we may have in common with 'Two and a Half Men' actor
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
I fear that somebody of the creationist bent just might do Pat some harm. I hope he increases his security. No joke. This religion didn't stay around over 2000 years on its intellectual merits, murder was the thing that kept it going.
Accusations. Call in SCOTUS.
Most Christians doen't believe that either! So Wow, what a shocker!
46% do. Shocker.
Just for clarity- this isn't him challenging creationism, but rather challenging "young earth" creationism. CNN, get your stuff together!
Some Christians don't agree with other Christians. Shocker!
Wow I've been praying for this to happen, maybe there is a god after all. A couple of weeks ago Pat thought we should legalize weed and now we didn't just materialize out of thin air? Things that make you go hmmmm.
Thin air? Your ancestors didn't tell you about the dust bowl?
46% !!!!!!!! OMG That is soooo Scary!
You know what's really scary? Your use of poor grammar and juvenile text slang.
As I pointed out elsewhere, this is unlikely. In their previous survey they found that only 30% believed in a literal interpretation of the bible, and its unlikely you'd come up with that number without a literal belief. Both numbers can't be right. Additionally, I've lived in enough parts of this country and talked to enough people about religion to find this really unlikely.
Coming Up—Theological Open House. We discuss thought-provoking topics. Your opinions are hardly welcome.
Pat Robertson doesn't believe the world is 6,000 years old? Worlds....they are colliding...
That's what I love about religion, especially the christians. They come to these conclusions despite the fact that it is common knowledge to everyone else. Gee, the earth isn't 6000 years old? Amazing!!! I hear the world is round too.
If you can't out smart them, join them.
this article was a rollercoaster for me. first, holy crap, pat robertson is sounding sane and i....i....this is so much harder than i thought it would be...i agree with him...welcome to the other side mr. robertson. ok, so i was happy that he finally saw the light (of science), but that was short lived. i quickly threw up when i read 46% of americans believe earth is 10,000 years old or less? are you kidding me? do they believe in unicorns too? reality anyone? and lastly, CNN, this one is squarely at you guys, i mean, this one really irked me and made me question your ability to be a reliable source of credible news:
"Most scientists, however, agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old."
NO. not 'most scientists'. ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT THE EARTH IS 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD. if you disagree, THEN YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST. you are not using the scientific method properly, and you are ignoring gigantic sets of data that tell you that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands.
Perhaps 46% of Americans believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old because folks like Robertson have been telling them that for the last few centuries?
Sorry, but there is no universal agreement as to precisely 4.5 billion years for the earth, or 14.5 for the universe. If there was universal agreement (e.g. the Newtonian view of the universe) it would be a case of scientific dogma overriding the scientific method. Your view that ALL scientists agree as to a precise number, or else they're not scientists, is a perfect example of dogmatic response.
The age of the universe has been and will still be subject to refinement – in the last 20 years, we have seen several changes in the estimated age, but all starting from a base of >10 billion years. The simple fact, not science, not religion, but fact, is that we are still developing and improving instrumentation that gives us increasing knowledge about the age of the universe and how it formed as we know it – everything from COBE to the work done by the Hubble, Spitzer and Chandra instruments, to the improvements in earth based telescopes.
The latter number is especially fluid. 4.5 billion years for the earth is close, but that is merely the average of an estimated range – it could as easily be 4.6 billion or 4.4. We know the oldest material in the solar system is around 4.6 billion, but we have no direct evidence of how long accretion disks take for form a mature solar system, and there are significant gaps in our knowledge – e.g. was the earth formed elsewhere in the solar system, disrupted by gravitational interaction and recaptured, etc.
Wow is a peer pressure advocate. They are easy to spot.
He, she, it whatever.............. should have known the religous nut jobs would try to shoot down any logic one might interject into a conversation about God! and in order to prove that they are right billions of years from now when our sun burns out and science says it will they will stay here on earth and burn up along with the planet so they can say look we were right! while the rest of the population who belives science (and that god is a ga;lactic scientist) moves on to a new planet at looks back at earth says see ya stupid! along the way we just might meet God who says I gave you a brain to figure out the wonders of the universe and science............ good job!
Did hell just freeze over?! An life-long Jesus junkie quoting actual EVIDENCE to support a position? Maybe the Mayans are correct and the world is coming to an end! Crazy things are starting to happen!
This is great! The New Testament makes much more sense when read from the perspective of mankind as a product of evolution. To be "born in sin" is to be born as a member of the ape family with all of evolution's drives and instincts. To be "born again" is to establish a connection with the Spirit and transcend those natural instincts, to live like creatures capable of thinking on a higher level than the other animals.
Dan, notanist.com
Whatever floats your boat, guy.
Can't say I "agree" but as long as you keep that "other animals" part in there, a person like you could help a lot of bible thumpers evolve, which would probably help our young people and our (dismal in comparison to other countries) test scores improve.
Niet, teaching to a test is a Beast idea.
to those of you who would like to dismiss the bible as fiction, i challenge you to read all the words in red, the words spoken by Jesus. "never a man spake like this man". but Jesus also said, no man cometh unto me save the father who sent me draw him. it is good, father, that thou hast kept this knowledge from the wise and the prudent, and revealed it unto babes. i believe the bible, though i am extremely interested in science, i am also aware that what is considered to be fact by science today may be proved wrong tomorrow, that's the nature of the scientific process. i do not doubt the bible, i believe that all the miracles in the bible actually happened. but i didn't always believe as such. only after god came into my life, actually revealed his presence and his majesty, and only after my sins were forgiven by the blood shed at calvary, did i realize that the bible was correct. science just hasn't caught up with the bible yet.
You can believe that Jesus is the son of god without believing the lunacy that is young earth creationism.
Oh shut up and fvck off, you half witted moron.
@Huebert,
"You can believe that Jesus is the son of god without believing the lunacy that is young earth creationism."
Could you expand on this? I've read the bible (not a Christian, but read it) and I didn't see this implication.
saraswati
Many people believe that Jesus is the son of god, but do not take Genesis as literal truth. I am an atheist and think it is all fiction, but I come from a family of believers, none of whom are creationist.
@Huebert,
Apologies, I somehow read that as "can't" not "can"...I should break down and wear my glasses!
" only after god came into my life, actually revealed his presence and his majesty"
And I would like to hear you expand on this.
(my reply was directed at the poster)
There's a huge difference between the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament and the writings of the Old Testament. The Old Testament was written to prepare the way for Jesus. Much of it is allegory. Why do we insist on thinking that the days God used to create man must be 24-hour days? Who are we to say what a "day" is for God? A day might mean anything – but to make sense to the audience, words were used that would make sense to humans. I believe in God and Jesus, but I also believe the Earth is millions of years old and God created life on his own schedule, not ours, and these beliefs do not contradict scientific facts.
saraswti
No worries, I do something similar at least twice a day and I'm wear my glasses 🙂
Piper,
It is obvious you sought refuge in a make believe world to get over whatever it was you wanted to get over... Doesn't mean others should too.
Nothing in RED is accurate. Jesus was illiterate and so were his disciples. Not one word spoken by Jesus was written down during his lifetime.
P.S. are you Tom's dad?
Scientists may change their minds? Oh, I agree
They may decide that the Universe is 14.51 billion years old instead of 14.5.
I doubt the bible is very accurate, but Jesus may well have been literate. There were policies at the time for schools in even small Jewish communities.
In 2000 years Harry Potter may be considered divine truth. There were stories identical to the bible before the bible. Its a fable to guide primitive man away from barbarism, nothing more. To say God presented himself to you is the same as to say I saw Santa.
Mama K
Piper must be Born Again. Danger.
piper – not a single word purportedly uttered by jesus was written down within generations of his death, which would make even the simplest sentence attributed to him highly suspect.
@saraswati
According to the Bible, Christ was indeed literate.
"He (Jesus) stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written.... Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him"(Luke 4:16-17, 20).
@pillsvile piper – Don't miss the point that Robertson is making here – your salvation does not hang in the wind over a mistranslation and false teaching by an archbishop hundreds of years ago. And to those sorry believers who keep adding up the years in Genesis – what's the point? Why can't you focus your time on a more meaningful ministry?
Man needs faith in order to belief total nonsense.
Man needs grammar checker.
Finally! The lunatics of God's creation may finally come around to reason!
I teach an astronomy class to elementary school kids and one of our projects is to cut out pictures from each epoch of the 13.8 billion year life of the universe onto a 138 foot roll of paper (each foot is 100,000,000 years). I don't care if you believe in God or not, to see the whole of creation the way it really happened is beautiful and inspiring, and the kids love it. It puts into context the last 6,000 of Earth as being both insignificant and the ultimate crescendo.
It ain't over til the fat lady sings? She resides in Babylon.
A quick five question test that every aspiring candidate for public office, Republican or Democrat, should be required to pass.
Q.1 The best theory we currently have is that Universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago in what is (somewhat misleadingly) called the Big Bang. To understand this we should:
a. Simply declare that, because we don’t know what caused the Big Bang, the Hindu god Brahma must have created the Universe.
b. Simply declare that, because we don’t know what caused the Big Bang, God must have created the Universe.
c. Adopt the Australian Aboriginal belief that the Universe was created by a great snake in the Dreamtime; or
d. Accept the limits on our current knowledge and just stop there, without invoking a magic act by any god to fill the current gap in our knowledge.
Q.2 Likewise, we know that life on Earth evolved over the last approximately 3.5 billion years and likely began in a planet wide “organic soup” of complex organic chemicals in the primordial oceans, in an increasingly well understood process. As such, we should:
a. Look for any limitation in our knowledge and, when we find one, jump up and say “aha, scientists cannot yet fully explain (for example) how DNA synthesis first occurred, therefore the Judeo-Christian god did it.”
b. Look for any limitation in our knowledge and, when we find one, jump up and say “aha, scientists cannot yet fully explain (for example) how DNA synthesis first occurred, therefore the Hindu god Brahma did it.”
c. Simply read our Bibles and find the answers there; or
d. Continue our scientific research and experimentation and not make the bald faced assertion that any god, ghost or goblin must have conjured up life through some inexplicable act of magic.
Q.3 The statement “I believe in God because the Bible tells me to and the reason I follow the Bible is because it is the word of God” is:
a. The reason 99% of Christians believe what they do;
b. Circular reasoning at its most obvious;
c. Specific to the Judeo-Christian parts of the World and totally rejected by all other parts of the World; or
d. All of the above.
Q.4 Probably the most fundamental tenet of Christian faith is that God sent his son Jesus to Earth to die and save us from the original sin of Adam and Eve. We now know that Adam and Eve was a myth. As such, any thinking Christian should:
a. Honestly and courageously question this and any other aspects of their faith that don’t make sense.
b. Make up some euphemistic nonsense like “well, we didn’t mean that literally” after having done exactly that for the last 1900 years until science comprehensively disproved it.
c. Just ignore the blatant contradiction and sweep it under the mat; or
d. Hold on to the myth because it makes them feel good.
Q.5 You are about 70% likely to believe the entire Universe began less than 10,000 years ago with only one man, one woman and a talking snake if you are a:
(a) historian;
(b) geologist;
(c) NASA astronomer; or
(d) Christian
Like
"The best theory we currently have " ie. you don't really know
"we know that life on Earth evolved over the last approximately 3.5 billion years" You don't know that. It's your theory.
"I believe in God because the Bible tells me to and the reason I follow the Bible is because it is the word of God" You believe in evolution the same way!LOL
"We now know that Adam and Eve was a myth" You don't know this. Nice try. Where is your evidence, outside of your theories, please. Studies on "Mitochondrial Eve" line up with the Bible.
You are very good at taking away authority from the Bible and giving it to yourself. You want proof that God created the universe outside of the Bible? Simply look at Nature. God bless.
Ooo! I'll answer!!!
Q1: e) Accept the limits on our current knowledge and just stop there, without trying to make assumptions with science that apply to a deity not bound by it. (Yes, I mean that Christians are just as wrong to say "Hey look, we don't know something, so God did it!")
Q2: d) Continue our scientific research and experimentation (see answer to Q1). (It should be noted that [c] is generally a good idea anyway, but most Bible scholars will tell you that it's not a science textbook, nor is it trying to be one.)
Q3: e) Hilariously reductionist.
Q4: a) This should be the response of every Christian, scientist, Buddhist, Hindu, journalist, poet, atheist, politician, etc.
Q5: d) Well this one is just obvious, silly!
Can I introduce a bonus question?
Q6: Which faith is greater, faith in one or more deities or faith in nothingness?
Colin....interestingly enough you appear to be very knowledgeable about the Christian tradition which would lead me to believe that you were raised with this understanding. Would genuinely be interested to know what steered you from this faith? While I certainly understand that "faith" is necessary to hold belief in the God of the Bible I would think that you would also be able to acknowledge that you are excercising at least as much "faith" in the origins that you describe.
Q1 – What does this have to do with politics or leadership? The only history that directly affects how they rule is the history of man (which is only a few thousand years worth). If a politician said the Big Bang was 23 billion years ago (rather than 6k or 13 billion) would that really affect how they lead (after all the difference between 13 and 23 billion is nothing except ones willingness to blindly believe whatever "science" says – and "science" doesn't have the best tract record at being correct).
Q2 – "we now know" Nope. Knowing (in the scientific sense) requires testability and direct observation. Can't do that with the past. You need to go back to your correct wording in Q1 about "best theory." "Best theory" is scientific. We now know is not.
Q3 – Circular reasoning? Yes. Congratulations. Here is some more circular reasoning: Most scientist agree on belief A, therefore belief A must be science, anyone who disagrees with belief A is probably not scientific or a scientist, most scientist agree on belief A. (Belief A can be evolution, manmade global warming, the potential of stem cells, the age of the universe, or whatever other flavor of the day is in the science community).
Q4 – Again, "we now know." Do you have direct or testable evidence of any event several thousands of years ago? Of course not.
Q5 – You seem to assume that you cannot be a Christain and a geologist, historian, or astronomer. However, there are many Christians in all of those fields, and EVERY President of these United States has claimed an allegience to Christianity. So, since science has advanced and the country has continued for several centuries with Christianity firmly esconced as the cornerstone of society, the real question a Presidential candidate should have to ask is:
Are you willing to stand up against zealots of all kinds (religious, cultural, or scientific) who attempt to bully society with their beliefs?
Dave
What definition of faith are you using? If you define faith as belief without evidence, I would say that all faith is equal. But I don't understand how one would have "faith in nothingness"?
Believer,
At least science is honest to state “the best explanation is....”. People like you just start with “Oh, we definitely know.... coz the Bible says so!” That happened when they said Bible says to hunt for witches, to enslave people, to accept disease as God’s wrath and so on....
No one needs to believe in evolution, the way you need to believe in Bible. No one is worshipping evolution, only using the knowledge that comes from its understanding for a better world.
Science is not attacking the authority of the Bible, the problem is “You feel your beliefs are under attack, bcoz you feel the ground slipping from right under your feet”.
And the authority of the Bible is anyways not accepted by more than 2/3rd of the human race! Which world do you live in? And exactly who are you trying to deceive here if not yourself?
@ believer – your first problem is that you don't even know he scientific definition of theory. You second problem is that you purposefully choose to be ignorant about science.
Huebert, ""faith"
occurs 247 times in 231 verses in the KJV".........."Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism," for example.
Believer,
Mitochondrial eve was once was in vogue as “the woman of the moment,” so to speak. Now, she has become virtually the “crazy aunt in the attic” that no one wants to admit even exists.
@Believer:
"The best theory we currently have " ie. you don't really know – Science has many theories relating to the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang is one of the ones that have been tested and somewhat replicated, on a smaller scale of course, through particle collision science. It's true, we really don't have an absolute handle on the origin of the universe, but I'd rather follow a scientist that has educated himself today, than a Hebrew that wondered in the desert thousands of years ago.
"we know that life on Earth evolved over the last approximately 3.5 billion years" You don't know that. It's your theory. – Again, this is testable and repeatable explaination that athropologists and archaeologists can quantify. The garden of eden hasn't been found in any reputable archaeological dig or expedition. If we can find out how old the earth is by reading/studying the bible, why hasn't anyone found the garden of eden the same way?
"I believe in God because the Bible tells me to and the reason I follow the Bible is because it is the word of God" You believe in evolution the same way!LOL – I know that evolution is a more viable fact because I can see it over the long term in fossil evidence, and in the shorter term of the 'lifespan' of micro-organisms that mutate or evolve. Evolution is just a genetic mutation in repsonse to the environment.
"We now know that Adam and Eve was a myth" You don't know this. Nice try. Where is your evidence, outside of your theories, please. Studies on "Mitochondrial Eve" line up with the Bible. – The reference to Eve may lead to the misconception that she was the only living female of her time, even though she co-existed with other females. However, all of her other female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to the present day. Studies of the mitochondrial "Eve" don't line up with the bible, unless the bible says that "Eve" lived 200,000 years ago in Africa.
You are very good at taking away authority from the Bible and giving it to yourself. You want proof that God created the universe outside of the Bible? Simply look at Nature. God bless. – You're very good at taking authority away from Science and giving it to a mythical god. Even the Jews, who christians took the old testament from, don't believe that it's the literal word of god, and that it's not a timeless, everlasting book. It was a collection of stories written by ancient people for their contemporaries to begin conversations as to the meaning of life, and how we all got here...not the end all, be all that christians are making it out to be. What un-inspired minds christians have!
@Dave:
Q2: d) Continue our scientific research and experimentation (see answer to Q1). (It should be noted that [c] is generally a good idea anyway, but most Bible scholars will tell you that it's not a science textbook, nor is it trying to be one.)
If biblical scholars think this way, where is the breakdown between the scholars and the everyday believer? Why do the scholars seem to know what's happening (in a simplistic way), but that information isn't filtering down to the masses?
@Oakspar
Q3 – Circular reasoning? Yes. Congratulations. Here is some more circular reasoning: Most scientist agree on belief A, therefore belief A must be science, anyone who disagrees with belief A is probably not scientific or a scientist, most scientist agree on belief A.
That's not circular reasoning...
very interesting points. I am a Catholic who has started to also believe in the scientific side side of things, and to be honest, it is rather conflicting with what I was brought up with...makes me feel guilty at times to be honest.
"People like you just start with “Oh, we definitely know.... coz the Bible says so!” That happened when they said Bible says to hunt for witches, to enslave people, to accept disease as God’s wrath and so on...."
Simran,
Right. There are different ways to study the Bible. 1. Non-Biblical, you use the Bible out of context. 2. Biblical Theology, you study the Bible only within the passage (this is where you get different perspectives that seem contradictory, ie. How did Judas die?) 3. Systematic theology uses the Bible to interpret the Bible. 2 Peter 1:20 i.e.Judas hanged himself and fell asunder bursting open.
Accepting scientific facts or theories does not necessarily contradict the notion that there is some kind of higher power in the universe. If anything, modern theories like big bang cosmology and quantum mechanics create more metaphysical questions than they dispel, but at a different level. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, but does change the ways that you have to envision or interpret your spirituality. Denying it is dillusion – even Pat Robertson realizes that. If you want to live by what's in the Bible that's fine, but simplistic literal interpretations are very dangerous – too many people take silly things out of it that simply aren't there – and the valuable things in it about morality and goodness have nothing to do with creation myths.
However, it's hard to believe that 46% of people in the US actually think the Earth is only 10,000 years old and was created in 6 days. If that was really an unbiased sample and it's true, then I'm really shocked and we are headed for another Dark Age. Seems hard to believe though...very scary if true.
That's why we need to give kids the other side of the story , they are being dragged to church by creationist parents and our test scores just stink compared to other developed countries. It's getting to be a question of religion being the opposite of patriotism, which is love for your country and concern for its well being. I wish we could make it as illegal to take a child into a church as it is to take them into a bar for a drink .
Considering only 30% of Americans in the previous year's Gallup poll interpreted the bible literally, this would imply 16% of the population didn't interpret the bible literally but still believed in this young earth interpretation. There's definitely something wrong with these figures. And no, I don't think there was over a 50% increase in people who believe literally in the bible in one year.
I know what I wrote SEEMS extreme, but I'm not joking. I taught primary school, my brother in law teaches AP biology at the high school level and this is a BIG problem for our nation. I used to be a "live and let live" type of atheist, and just ignore this religious talk and move along. We "nones" (and reasonable scientific christians) need to somehow politiaclly organize and provide some programs for young people that will combat this ignorance. The problem IS real and it IS here. I quoted that percentage yesterday in that Two and a half men story, and somebody like you just COULDN'T believe it was that bad, but it is. What to do?
@Nietodarwin,
I live in an area where almost everyone believes in evolution and the test scores still stink. To do chemistry and physics and even most of biology this biblical stuff isn't that important. Sure, I'd like to emphasize science over religion more in some of the country's backwards areas, but I'd rather put some harder standards in place and eliminate non-metric systems so our kids don't have to learn what amounts to a foreign language to learn science.
No matter how life was created in our universe it's still a miracle.
Not a miracle. Just science. We cannot explain everything yet, and maybe we never will. That being said, there are two undeniable facts that must be accepted.
1. We know more today than we knew yesterday, and will know even more tomorrow.
2. It is ok to say that we don't know everything yet.
While I don't agree with many of Pat Robertson's views, I do appreciate that this particular soundbite is getting coverage. Many Christians reject the 'Young Earth' idea because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. The Bible was never created to be a science text book, just like scientific findings are not necessarily blue prints for finding God. So much media coverage focuses on the very conservative aspects of Christianity. (And while Robertson IS quite conservative, his statements here are not.) It's nice that CNN is running a story that voices the thoughts of a different Christian demographic.
Christians have never needed proof. Their entire religion is based on faith. Your comment is nothing more than how you want to see your faith even in direct contradiction to just about every poll done on the subject.
Had the religious leaders been real students of the Bible, these possibly could have grasped that each "creative" day was several thousand years long, not 24 hours. For each of the six "creative" days, there was closure, saying: "And there came to be an evening and there came to be a morning, a_____ day."(Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31)
However, of the seventh" creative" day, there has been no closure. The apostle Paul notes that the "seventh day" or God's rest day, was still ongoing during his time on the earth, saying to the Hebrew Christians: "Therefore, since a promise is left of entering into his rest, let us fear that sometime someone of you may seem to have fallen short of it.....For we who have exercised faith do enter into the rest.....For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works."(Heb 4:1, 3, 4)
Thus, God's "seventh day" or ' rest day' is still ongoing even down to our time, some 6000 years after Adam's creation and will not be completed until the Millennial reign of Christ Jesus in the near future. Then it can be said: "And there came to be an evening and there came to be a morning, a seventh day".
Oh bullsh.it. The Jews always understood it to mean 7 actual days. That is why the sabbath is sacred. And they wrote it!
Are you actually suggesting that the reason there is not a single shred of evidence for your god is that he is on vacation?
lol
Days is days, son.