Pat Robertson challenges creationism, cities dinosaurs

[Azygos]

Disproving your interpretation is not the same as disproving the Scripture.
You tag yourself as Catholic. Please note that the Catholic Church does not teach Young Earth Creationism.
I’ve witnessed some debates between YEC believers and others. Generally YEC loses.

Historically the YE theory seems to be the product, not of biblical scholarship over the ages, but of one Bishop Usher, who used data such as the listed ages of pre-Deluge patriarchs, to attempt to calculate the date of creation.
My point is that the Scripture does not assert YEC. Bishop Usher and his disciples do that.

Yea at the moment the Catholic Church says believe whatever you want as long as you believe in God… But I’m telling you that attitude leads to bad philosophy and understanding. It also makes people doubt the Authority of the Bible. It also goes against earlier doctrines of the Catholic Church because it is written as a literal genesis.

 

[waanju]

It also contradicts scripture and if it contradicts scripture then either scripture is wrong or your theory is wrong.

Mark 10
6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.

Did I say that God didn’t make us?
THAT would be wrong. God did make us. I’m just saying that we are not required to know exactly how he decided to create and arrange all of our atoms from nothing to become a human being. Maybe He did it slowly, with style and complexity. Maybe He did it all at once.

However, as the God of order, why would God decide to make man in one manner, then set up a new system of rules for evolution so that we could breed better sheepdogs?

Also, Genesis has two different accounts of how Eve was made. Which do you think is right?

 

[Azygos]

Did I say that God didn’t make us?
THAT would be wrong. God did make us. I’m just saying that we are not required to know exactly how he decided to create and arrange all of our atoms from nothing to become a human being. Maybe He did it slowly, with style and complexity. Maybe He did it all at once.

Also, Genesis has two different accounts of how Eve was made. Which do you think is right?

So then either God is a liar or the bible is wrong, which is it?

 

[Azygos]

Disproving your interpretation is not the same as disproving the Scripture.
You tag yourself as Catholic. Please note that the Catholic Church does not teach Young Earth Creationism.
I’ve witnessed some debates between YEC believers and others. Generally YEC loses.

Historically the YE theory seems to be the product, not of biblical scholarship over the ages, but of one Bishop Usher, who used data such as the listed ages of pre-Deluge patriarchs, to attempt to calculate the date of creation.
My point is that the Scripture does not assert YEC. Bishop Usher and his disciples do that.

You’ve said you have witnessed debates but you’re making your conclusion on the popular vote. Actually to present that as evidence is to present an ad-populum argument which is fallacious. The evolutionlist love to do this to defend their point. They say well most scientist believe it why don’t you? I say because they don’t believe in God and the Truth is not in them.

 

[JimG]

You’ve said you have witnessed debates but you’re making your conclusion on the popular vote. Actually to present that as evidence is to present an ad-populum argument which is fallacious. The evolutionlist love to do this to defend their point. They say well most scientist believe it why don’t you? I say because they don’t believe in God and the Truth is not in them.

But many scientists DO believe in God. Many are Catholic. Many believe in the bible. They don’t do science by perusing the bible, --that’s not good science or good scripture study–, and they find no contradiction between Faith and science. Nor do I.

 

[waanju]

So then either God is a liar or the bible is wrong, which is it?

That is a false dilemma.
God is not a liar. Hi IS truth.
The Bible isn’t WRONG, even if the events didn’t happen exactly as depicted in Genesis. Just as the parable of the lost sheep isn’t wrong just because it didn’t happen. The Bible is a collection of different types of writing ( including prophecy, poetry, philosophy, fiction (Tobit), metaphor, history, and biography, among others) Just because Genesis wouldn’t be a good historical account (like Tobit wouldn’t be) does not mean that it is wrong.
It is only if you view the Bible as purely historical that you have a problem with, say, the separate accounts of the creation of Eve.

 

[RACJ]

I’m not a “young earth” creationist, but I am nonetheless incredulous that anyone believes in step-by-step evolution from paramecium to man. It’s simply absurd, but people actually swear by this theory! As for Pat, the sanity train has left the station without him, IMO, but here I think he’s simply wrong. It’s a funny thing, b/c there is some very good progamming on his 700 Club. Rob

 

[Azygos]

Please brothers let me plead with you. There are creation scientist out there who have exploded the evolution and old earth theories. Beloved brothers let me remind you that these naturalist scientist that bring you these two theories do not have the Spirit of Truth. If they say that God is a lie then how can you believe them as credible sources? They also make up their theories based on the absence of God for a materialist worldview.
Let me give you and example.

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and author of a number of books on Darwinian theory, illustrates the implicit metaphysical starting point of the evolutionary dogma. Even when the facts point away from a certain scientific explanation for a given theory, evolution must be followed because the materialistic religion of Darwin must be protected against any Divine intrusion:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

 

[Azygos]

That is a false dilemma.
God is not a liar. Hi IS truth.
The Bible isn’t WRONG, even if the events didn’t happen exactly as depicted in Genesis. Just as the parable of the lost sheep isn’t wrong just because it didn’t happen. The Bible is a collection of different types of writing ( including prophecy, poetry, philosophy, fiction (Tobit), metaphor, history, and biography, among others) Just because Genesis wouldn’t be a good historical account (like Tobit wouldn’t be) does not mean that it is wrong.
It is only if you view the Bible as purely historical that you have a problem with, say, the separate accounts of the creation of Eve.

The parable of the lost sheep is called a parable. Genesis is not a parable nor has it ever been called a parable. It has always been taught as literally even in Catholic Doctrine. I view the Bible as the Authority that is of God because it is Divinely Inspired. It is the Word of God.

 

[Azygos]

But many scientists DO believe in God. Many are Catholic. Many believe in the bible. They don’t do science by perusing the bible, --that’s not good science or good scripture study–, and they find no contradiction between Faith and science. Nor do I.

“Some important questions follow from the Bible’s teaching on the pre-Fall creation and the post-Fall curse. If God cursed the earth with thorns after Adam sinned (as Genesis 3:18 says, “both thorns and thistles [the ground] shall grow for you”),24 then why do we find fossil thorns in rock layers which the evolutionists claim are about 350 million years old?29 If the millions of years are true, then God lied about the thorns and thistles.30 Conversely, if Genesis 3:18 is true, then the evolutionist claim about millions of years must be a lie.”

So either God is a liar or the Bible is wrong, which is it?

 

[waanju]

Also, here are some lovely quotes to consider:
Beware of the person of one book.
St. Thomas Aquinas

Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches.
St. Thomas Aquinas

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels** if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false**.” St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The man is a traitor to his Faith. Science proves that evolution is a fallacy and that the earth is young. He has been listening to materialist scientist and should start listening to the creation scientist. I can go up against materialist science and win with a young earth argument because indeed the earth is very young. Before anyone gets all self-righteous on me for believing in a literal genesis and young earth know this. If the first book in the Bible is proven false in it’s account of creation then why should anyone believe in the rest of the Bible. See as we know it God is the Truth and he cannot lie. So if you can disprove the first page then all is lost because it disproves God and the bibles credibility

There are two creation accounts in Genesis and they contradict each other. So it is impossible for Genesis to be completely correct. It must be wrong somewhere.

Heck, in one of the accounts He creates light and darkness. Then, days later, creates the sun so that there will be… light and darkness.

 

[waanju]

“Some important questions follow from the Bible’s teaching on the pre-Fall creation and the post-Fall curse. If God cursed the earth with thorns after Adam sinned (as Genesis 3:18 says, “both thorns and thistles [the ground] shall grow for you”),24 then why do we find fossil thorns in rock layers which the evolutionists claim are about 350 million years old?29 If the millions of years are true, then God lied about the thorns and thistles.30 Conversely, if Genesis 3:18 is true, then the evolutionist claim about millions of years must be a lie.”

So either God is a liar or the Bible is wrong, which is it?

The curse wasn’t about thorns and thistles being created for the first time. The curse was that they would grow where Adam was trying to plant food. Basically, the curse was weeds and hard farm labor.

Thorny plants could have been growing without hurting man or interfering with food before, and the curse would be the same/

 

[Azygos]

Also, here are some lovely quotes to consider:
Beware of the person of one book.
St. Thomas Aquinas

Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches.
St. Thomas Aquinas

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels** if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false**.” St. Thomas Aquinas

Catholic Doctrine has always taught Literal Genesis. Scientific scrutiny also proves the bible to be True. Evolution and Old Earth theories have been exploded.

 

[Azygos]

There are two creation accounts in Genesis and they contradict each other. So it is impossible for Genesis to be completely correct. It must be wrong somewhere.

Heck, in one of the accounts He creates light and darkness. Then, days later, creates the sun so that there will be… light and darkness.

Why does God need the Sun to create light and darkness? Besides light and darkness exist outside of the Sun. So if he created light and darkness then their must of been a point in time when they ceased to exist.

 

[Azygos]

There are two creation accounts in Genesis and they contradict each other. So it is impossible for Genesis to be completely correct. It must be wrong somewhere.

Heck, in one of the accounts He creates light and darkness. Then, days later, creates the sun so that there will be… light and darkness.

Let me explain that further to you. If I go into my bathroom and close the door it will be completely dark as it is enclosed and I have the light off. So light an darkness exist outside the sun. Although the Sun is a source for light.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

First you say this:

Azygos:

I can go up against materialist science and win with a young earth argument because indeed the earth is very young

Then you say this:

Azygos:

So your telling me that Life grew and died grew and died over and over and over and over again until we finally spawned from monkeys slowly to man and he then gave us souls?

Which grants me 100% certainty that your first claim is false. How can you be so certain that you can “go up against a materialist scientist”, presumably to disprove evolution, when you don’t know one of the most basic claims that evolutionary theory makes?

Man did not “spawn from monkeys.” Evolutionary theory does not say this. Over the past year, I’ve had to repeatedly remind people that evolutionary theory does not say this. I don’t know why I need to remind anyone that’s genuinely interested in the subject that this is incorrect, because it’s one of the most basic elements of evolutionary theory.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Why does God need the Sun to create light and darkness? Besides light and darkness exist outside of the Sun. So if he created light and darkness then their must of been a point in time when they ceased to exist.

What light are we talking about? For the sake of clarity: none of the stars (including our Sun) exist until the same day in which God creates the Sun (according to one account.)

 

[ishii]

The man is a traitor to his Faith. Science proves that evolution is a fallacy and that the earth is young. He has been listening to materialist scientist and should start listening to the creation scientist. I can go up against materialist science and win with a young earth argument because indeed the earth is very young. Before anyone gets all self-righteous on me for believing in a literal genesis and young earth know this. If the first book in the Bible is proven false in it’s account of creation then why should anyone believe in the rest of the Bible. See as we know it God is the Truth and he cannot lie. So if you can disprove the first page then all is lost because it disproves God and the bibles credibility. Thank God science proves young earth! Here is a good website for you,
kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

Do you think the Earth is flat too?

Ishii

 

[Azygos]

First you say this:

Then you say this:

Which grants me 100% certainty that your first claim is false. How can you be so certain that you can “go up against a materialist scientist”, presumably to disprove evolution, when you don’t know one of the most basic claims that evolutionary theory makes?

Man did not “spawn from monkeys.” Evolutionary theory does not say this. Over the past year, I’ve had to repeatedly remind people that evolutionary theory does not say this. I don’t know why I need to remind anyone that’s genuinely interested in the subject that this is incorrect, because it’s one of the most basic elements of evolutionary theory.

Because the scientific evidences for one. Simple list for you here.
icr.org/article/1842/

The Worldview of evolution is inconsistent and arbitrary. By that alone it is false not to mention the theories are promoted by Atheist who do not have the Spirit of Truth. Then I have the Authority of God on my side.