Ken Ham of Creation Museum Slams Robertson for Dismissing Young Earth Theory

34

Pat Robertson has been accused by evangelical Christian and creationism proponent Ken Ham of “destructive teaching,” after the televangelist stated that the existence of dinosaurs is evidence that Young Earth Creationists are wrong about the planet being 6,000 years old.


Christian Broadcasting Network spokesman Chris Roslan told The Christian Post on Friday, however, that “Dr. Robertson stands by his comments.”

The controversy arose earlier this week when Robertson, co-hosting his “The 700 Club” program on CBN, dismissed the theory that the earth is only 6,000 years old, which Ken Ham, CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, took offense to.

“Not only do we have to work hard to not let our kids be led astray by the anti-God teaching of the secularists, we have to work hard to not let them be led astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson,” Ham said Wednesday in a post on Facebook.

“Pat Robertson gives more fodder to the secularists. We don’t need enemies from without the church when we have such destructive teaching within the church,” Ham added in the statement shared with those following his non-profit Christian apologetics ministry on Facebook.

Written By: Stoyan Zaimov
continue to source article at christianpost.com

34 COMMENTS

  1. Ken Ham’s response to Pat Robertson regarding the Earth’s age is like watching conservatives attacking liberals regarding climate change. While the latter admits its existence, and the former denies it altogether, they’re both still lunatics who’ll use their prophets/profits as a means of justifying their lack of care for everything else.

  2. Although we know that both these guys are fruit loops and ignorant of the way the world really is. At least Pat acknowledges that the earth isn’t 6,000 years old and is much older thus putting down the young earth creationists. Pat is still ignorant enough to believe in creationism but at least he acknowledges the science behind a more realistic view of the age of the planet and for that we should give him some credit (however small). Hopefully this realisation is the thin edge of the wedge for Pat to question his faith – but I won’t hold my breath.

  3. That’s the thing about religinut “revealed belief without evidence”!  Any nutter’s belief is equally valid (at zero cred.) as the next nutter’s revelation – and both can be just as “offended” that someone disagrees with their absurd nuttery!

    Meanwhile back in the real world : –   Ha! ha! ha! ha!   I’d like to help, but I can’t find my white coat!

    What they need is a separate state which will give them asylum.   I’ll leave it to the reader to guess which sort – (political or institutional.)

  4. “I still shake my head at the number of church leaders who want to
    appease the secularists and accept their anti-God religion of millions
    of years and even molecules to man evolution,”

    Anyone else pick up the irony of Ken Ham using the label of religion as an insult?

  5. I’ve read comments by YEC’s before and cringed, but for my edification I read all the comments under Ham’s post.  I’m stunned by the indoctrinated ignorance, delusions & confirmation bias those comments display.
    I’ve never had any religion or faith – and can’t express how lucky I’ve been.
    ‘Religion Poisons Everything’ is not an exaggeration….

  6. The source article on Christian Post is interesting and has a bit more info. In particular, there is a chart showing the various “origins” ideas – the spectrum from YEC to non-theistic naturalistic evolution. Very useful to see the various ideas listed and the problems that go with them
     
    http://www.originscience.com/o
    Note carefully there is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page – the guy who put it together was still a “believer” of some sort at the time, but is now an atheist

    But, what I find interesting, is the list of problems that he lists for OEC. YEC is just total crap. So is Theistic Evolution  – its like trying to batter the square peg of religion into a round hole . 

    OEC, on the other hand and its atterndant “Intelligent Design” is the paradigm of choice for the “sophisticated” theologians like John Lennox, Alistair McGrath and William Lane Craig. You can chuck “wee flea” David Robertson in with that lot as well.

    And when looked at carefully, it simply doesnt fit with either science, or what the bible says. Its another fudge. The chart in that link shows this well IMO

    Presumably Pat Robertson is OEC? Anyone know?

    SG

  7. @Xtian  Post:

     
    Asemodeus

    Removed by moderator

    I think these two comments at Xtian post, explain the level of intellect over there

      garybryson -

    Asemodeus
    – You’ve been teaching evolution and naturalism in “science” classes
    for a lot of years, in both government schools, and in many private
    schools. You must not have much credibility or more people would have
    bought what you’re selling.

    The first comment from the science teacher has been deleted, while the YEC & OEC muppets continue to spout nonsense!

  8. Truman_Smith
    Speaking of young earthers, here’s a video clip from a recent date at Portland State University where Eric Hovind says that brain chemistry is akin to a fizzy soft drink

    For those who understand NOTHING about chemical reactions, all chemical reactions are the same – (a total mystery – and a prime site for a magic god-of-gaps) .

    I suppose that they did not have the heart to tell him that effervescence, where a gas comes out of solution when the pressure is released, is a physical, and NOT a chemical reaction! 
    Still! – That’s “YEC science” in typical use as “proof”!

    Surely in any reputable university, this can only be entertainment value, or course fodder for the psychology students to analyse?

  9. Let’s be kind, Christianly even, to these two Christians who despite their beliefs, also have to make a buck or two to survive. One has to run a fantasy museum based on Biblical truth. The other has to present a TV show, probably with a much larger audience, not all of whom have bought into the Earth’s birthday being 23rd October 4004 bc. Robertson, the man who can’t understand the moon or the tides, nevertheless, has to take a slightly less stupid position than the fantasy museum owner!

    That is only from the theological point of view of course,  absolutely nothing to do with money!

    God meanwhile sits on high and happily anticipates watching Robertson and Ham perpetually wrestling in heaven’s lofty arena!

    (Removes tongue from cheek and exits stage left)

  10. SaganTheCat
    did someone say christian fight? this should be surreal, get me tickets

    .. .. . . And Roberson quickly goes into the lead with a sharp “argument from ignorance” -

    . .. … but is countered with Ham’s “argument from incredulity”!

    Roberson’s circular argument, circles to the left,

    while Ham’s Equivocation shuffles across the ring!

    With a sucker punch to the strawman, Robertson attacks,

    .. … but is caught by Ham’s ad-hominem, leaving them even at the end of round one.

    Ham comes out fighting at the start of round 2, but slips on a red-herring and trips over a balance fallacy.

    Robertson moves the goal-posts and attacks from behind, with a non sequiteur, but is caught out on a slippery slope!

    Ham comes back with an association fallacy, begging the question, and following up with strong negative proof, before being caught out by another argument from ignorance to the left ear!

    Robertson has a go at poisoning the well – with tradition –  and ancient whizzdumb, 

    but Ham clinches it with an emotional appeal to the authority of the theist referee, and wins on points with a false analogy and a generalisation from fictional evidence!

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
    Another MIRACLE in the name of “fundaMENTALIST reasoning”!

    ☺☻☺☻☺☻☺☻☺☻☺

  11. HOLD ON A MINUTE!!! Didn’t Pat Robertson once have Ray Comfort on his show, and they were both giggling ignorantly about some straw-man argument Ray had put forward to try and discredit evolution by invoking a solitary legless blind dog growing eyes and legs but not having  to search the globe for a lady dog to reproduce!!

    I think Ray was trying to publicise his book “You can lead an atheist to water but you cant make him think”

  12. I think Ray was trying to publicise his book “You can lead an atheist to water but you can’t make him think”

    Presumably catalogued under the buyer section, “A fool and his money are soon parted!” – Next to the ads for the “Creation Museum”!

  13. They both need locking up in secure establishments and the key thrown away. Both are dangerous, mentally deficient bigmouths who appeal to the millions of slow minded American halfwits. Why does the sensible rational American contingent put up with this stupidity. The USA was once a country to be admired for its technical scientific achievements but it is now becoming a bit player on the world scene because the religious idiotcracy is allowed to befoul the minds of the the average American with unfounded non scientific retarding garbage claptrap.

Leave a Reply