Even fools are thought wise when they keep silent; with their mouths shut, they seem intelligent. - Proverbs 17:28
Now that Black Friday is over and the Christmas season is in full swing, I was wondering how long it would be until something out the ordinary happened that would make all of us scratch our heads in utter amazement and disbelief. It didn't take long for someone to grab the seasonal spotlight to attack either Christmas, the Bible, holiday greetings, or nativity scenes erected on "public" property and gain their 15 minutes of television fame. Little did I realize that the head scratching comments would come from none other than the famous Pat Robertson of 700 Club!
Maybe you read the blog I wrote entitled Shut Up!? In that blog, I documented Pat Robertson's answer to a television viewer's question regarding Alzheimer disease. Pat was asked a question on his television program by a caller. The caller told Pat about a situation in which a friend of his had a wife who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The caller went on to state that his friend was seeing another woman all the while he was still married to his wife who had Alzheimer's and wanted to know what Pat's "advice" was in dealing with his friend and his situation. The following is an article from The Los Angeles Times about the comments:
The controversy stems from comments Robertson made recently on the "700 Club" program on Christian Broadcast Network. His comments came in response to a caller who said that a friend had begun dating other women while his wife lies seriously ill with Alzheimer's, and justifies it by saying that "his wife, as he knows her, is gone." Robertson said he agrees with the man: "What he says basically is correct. I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her." His co-host pressed Robertson about whether that violates the marriage vows. Robertson responded that Alzheimer's "is a kind of death" and added, "I certainly wouldn't put a guilt trip on you" for choosing divorce in such a scenario."
Instead of dispensing some good old fashion Biblical advice and wisdom mixed with love and compassion, Pat launched into an outrageous response that would have left even the hardest hearted humanist surprised at this "Christian" passionate response!
Well Pat may have outdone himself this time with his latest "faux pas" comments. Pat was once again asked a question on his television show, but this time in regard to the Biblical account of creation and dinosaurs. The question stated that a woman was having a hard time telling her children about dinosaurs because the Bible doesn't mention them.
Pat started off by "blessing" then "criticizing" Bishop Ussher and his chronological genealogical timetable that he piecemealed together from the Biblical list of the human chronologies. While Bishop Ussher's timetable gives an exact date of creation at 4004 B.C., the Bible does not give an exact date of creation. However, the Bible does give us an approximate date of creation by the adding together of the human genealogies listed in Genesis account of the Bible - and this is exactly what Bishop Ussher did. This approximation gives us a general creation date at about 4000 B.C. plus or minus some years.
The reason this 4000 B.C. date is so controversial today is that contemporary evolutionary thought demands billions of years for the ascent of man from a primordial beginning to our current evolutionary elitist standing and excludes any god from involvement in the creation and development of mankind. Because "modern" science rejects "in toto" any early date for the creation's beginning, any early date suggested is lampooned, rejected, and banished by the "experts" with all sorts of "scientific explanations" supporting their disdain of God, the Bible, or any supposed evidence for a young earth.
Pat Robertson's response was surprising. He cited "scientific tests" and "buried dinosaurs" as somehow proving that there was life before the Bible and that the world is not approximately 6000 years old. He even scolded his audience, telling them not to fight against "revealed science" because they will lose their children!
When I first heard these ludicrous comments, I thought to myself, "not again Pat!" His lack of Biblical understanding, application, and logic would disqualify him from teaching elementary classes of Sunday School at most churches. To suggest that Christians not fight against "revealed science" reveals his improper or ignorant understanding of Biblical creation and evolutionary theory and the logical, philosophical and consequential implications of each belief system. Then to suggest that Christian parents would lose their children to science if they maintain the belief in a young earth bordered on absurdity. Read the following article from the Evolution is Dead website about the age of the Grand Canyon to see if "revealed science" should be trusted in the debate of origins or the history of the earth!.
New Volley Cast into the Grand Canyon Age Wars
Age estimates for the Grand Canyon by secular geologists differ between 100,000 years to 70 million years. Who are you going to believe?
The latest applecart-upsetting estimate, published in Science by Rebecca. M. Flowers of the University of Colorado and K. A. Farley of Caltech, puts it at 70 million years – 12 times older than what they called the “prevailing view” of 5–6 million years (although another estimate of 17 million was proposed in 2008; see 4/10/2008, and even ages less than a million had been proposed earlier – see 11/30/2007, 7/22/2002, 5/31/2002). Flowers and Farley based their estimate on helium content of apatite in the western Grand Canyon, an alleged proxy for temperature and exposure to air. They recognized, though, the “puzzling array of data” that make dating difficult.
While Science Daily seemed excited to announce that Grand Canyon is “old as the dinosaurs,” the AAS news service Science Now says the new estimate is not likely to settle the controversy: “many researchers are skeptical, noting that it’s not clear whether these findings radically change current scenarios of how and when the iconic gorge was carved.”
According to Science Now, Flowers realizes that the debate over the age of the canyon has raged for over 150 years: “If history were as simple as the popular view, the canyon’s origins wouldn’t continue to be a topic of hot debate,” she said. Skeptics counter that the one measurement from apatite helium content “hardly closes the debate on the canyon’s age.” There’s “a lot of evidence for a young Grand Canyon,” one said (thinking in terms of 6 million years or less). Another critic who collected the same kind of data a couple of kilometers away and got far younger results calls the 70-million-year date “out in left field.” The 2008 estimate of 17 million based on speleothems is also controversial.
Becky Oskin at Live Science focused on the controversy, admitting that from the rim the canyon “looks young” (still assuming a few million years). She quoted geologist Richard Young:
Science Daily, though, echoing the U Colorado press release featuring home girl Rebecca Flowers, made the new (old) date look as good as possible. Even so, the press release recognized the controversy, and hinted that Flowers might be partly right:“It really looks like they’re onto something, but it’s hard to make sense out of it,” said Young, a professor at the State University of New York in Geneseo. “It’s really good work and it’s really interesting, so obviously there’s something we’re missing in the story. I’m sure we’re going to be talking about it forever,” he said.
Flowers said there is significant controversy among scientists over the age and evolution of the Grand Canyon. A variety of data suggest that the Grand Canyon had a complicated history, and the entire modern canyon may not have been carved all at the same time. Different canyon segments may have evolved separately before coalescing into what visitors see today.
Even so, there’s a huge time difference between 70 million and even 17 million years – a period during which mass extinctions and the rise of the Rocky Mountains are said to have occurred. “I expect that our interpretation that the Grand Canyon formed some 70 million years ago is going to generate a fair amount of controversy, and I hope it will motivate more research to help solve this problem,” Flowers said, hinting that her study with Farley was almost intentionally put out as a challenge.
New Scientist went over the top in its headline, “Dinosaurs might have once gazed into the Grand Canyon.” Then again, they might not have. Or, they might have just a few thousand years ago, if the creationists are right. Reporter Joanna Carver appealed to readers’ imaginations: “Picture the scene. It’s late in the Cretaceous period, 70 million years ago. A group of dinosaurs have gathered at the rim of what will become known as the Grand Canyon. They’re gawping over the edge, just as humans will in millennia to come,” she limned. “That might not be complete fantasy.” Then again, it might.
This is why you should treat dates from geologists with a huge serving of laughing gas. The colossal extremes of their estimates for this most famous earth feature clearly shows that they do not know what they are talking about. They are the blind men and the elephant, looking at a tail and calling the elephant a rope, or looking at the tusk and calling the elephant a spear. These same geologists consistently ignore evidence for a very recent, catastrophic carving of the canyon.
There are two separate dating problems with Grand Canyon: the date the sediments were laid down, and the date the canyon was carved. Creation geologists have given ample evidence why the canyon and its sediments are far younger than secular estimates. Examples include the vast extent of strata, their flatness, the lack of fault lines extending part way up, entire epochs missing between strata with no sign of erosion, soft-sediment deformation extending through multiple sequences, and more (see 6/24/2009 commentary). Why are these evidences completely ignored in the dating game? Answer: they give young age that that supports a catastrophic global flood. Geologists shudder to give aid and comfort to creationists.
Even if you are not ready to entertain a drastic reduction in the age of the earth, it’s enough for now to recognize from these articles that secular geologists are clueless about the age of the Grand Canyon. Actually, they have clues, but are clueless about reading them. Why trust what they conclude, when one of them said he’s sure they’ll be talking about this forever? Do they deserve that kind of job security?
Pat, this is only one small example of science being wrong about the Bible, dinosaurs, the age of the earth, the flood of Noah, and a host of other Biblical stories where "science" claims to correct the false facts about Biblical history. Numerous examples could be cited to prove my point, but time and space do not allow for all the examples that could be provided. It is because of answers like the above that we are losing our kids to the so-called scientific, humanistic, and atheistic worldviews. Giving our children a "revealed" Biblical worldview along with reasonable explanations from the scriptures will keep our children from falling prey to the deceptions of evolutionary science and the so-called infallible proclamations of evolutionary scientist. Equipping our children with a proper Biblical worldview will keep them from worshiping at the false shrine of evolutionary science and humanism and turn our culture - as well as our children - back toward the sure certainty of God's Holy Word.
Stay Holy, My Friends!