Pat Robertson remains something of an enigma. Just when you dismiss him as a religious wing nut who says that God gives him tips of who will win elections; atheists want people to be miserable; and causes earthquakes to punish Haitians as Devil worshippers. Then Robertson turns around and calls for the legalization of marijuana and now called for evangelists to stop suggesting that the Earth is only 6000 years old when every scientific fact points to the contrary. I wish he would just pick one side of the sanity/insanity line and stick with it because this is getting confusing.
Robertson finally uttered the truth about a ludicrous calculation made in 1650 by the Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher when he estimated that the Earth was created on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. Yet, forty six percent of pastors insist the Earth is 6000 years old. American politicians like Sarah Palin and others (here) also still proclaim faith in the young age of the Earth as biblically correct even if it is scientifically nonsensical.
Robertson’s surprising comments came on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s “700 Club.” A viewer wrote into the show to express her “biggest fear is to not have my children and husband next to me in God’s Kingdom because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.” In response, Robertson said:
Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop [James] Ussher wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn’t. 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.
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. . . . If you fight science, you’re going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was.”
It is an interesting contrast to so many politicians. In the GOP primary, Huntsman was a refreshing contrast in challenging the party to stop denying science. Had the GOP embraced Huntsman, I am convinced it would have secured the White House. Instead, his candidacy died out with little support as science-denying candidates prevailed in race after race.
This announcement follows an admission from Robertson that he misheard God’s tip on who would win the presidential election. Earlier he told viewers that God told him the name of the ultimate victor. After the election, Robertson explained that he “missed” the message. He explained “I sure did miss it, I thought I heard from God, I thought I had heard clearly from God, what happened? What intervenes? Why? You ask God, how did I miss it? Well, we all do and I’ve had a lot of practice.”
It is part of the yin and yang of Pat Robertson. One moment is he clear and cogent and the next he will channelling bizarre messages from the Almighty.
Source: Huff Post
Jon Huntsman Has A Job To Do
By Charles P. Pierce
11/30/12
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/jon-huntsman-and-republican-party-113012
I have to admit, I came to like Jon Huntsman a little bit during his brief stint as a Republican presidential candidate. He was an Out Now guy in regards to Afghanistan, which appealed to me. And he had the undeniable asset of Not Being Insane, which was enough to allow him to maintain his viability almost all the way to Easter.
But now, well, he’s behaving in a fashion that calls to mind the question that my old Irish grandmother used to direct at people she thought were behaving above their station.
I think the deliberation about the Republican Party that we’re having is a very healthy thing,” Huntsman told CNN. “And if we don’t wind up at the end of the exercise with a mission statement that is one sentence long, then we’re toast. That one statement ought to be, ‘Balance the budgets and get out of people’s lives.’ And you ought to build the party around that because we have strong libertarian roots that go way back to the early days of the Republican Party…
Huntsman went on to warn that the party was occasionally consumed by such “fringe issues, and it gets us stuck in the alleyways of life that take our focus away from what is really important for the American people, and that is individual freedom and that is getting the budgets balanced so people can get on with their lives.”
He also modestly refused to comment about the (admittedly unlikely) possibility that he would be appointed Secretary Of State, although he did imply that he’d serve if asked.
Will of god, my grandmother would say, and who’s your man when he’s at home?
Can you see the problem here? Of course, you can. Huntsman is another Green Room Republican, beloved of the courtier press with its deficit-fetishism and its maudlin shawlie’s worship of “bipartisanship.” (Listening to Huntsman’s fans among the elite media is like listening to Ron Paul’s more fervid followers, except less fun.) He has less influence within the Republican party as it is presently constituted than I do. And he is not likely to develop any as the party goes through with the largely cosmetic “introspection” that at the end will result with people like Eric Cantor still considered to be leaders and people like Paul Ryan still considered to be philosophers. More Republicans take Sean Hannity seriously than take Jon Huntsman seriously, and the competition there isn’t even close. Asking him what the Republicans should do so the country would start looking at them less as the vehicle for ungovernable white rage is like asking a dead deer by the side of the highway for a traffic report. If Huntsman really wants to help the country, he can get the hell off TV, go back into the party, and straighten it out from within. I keep hearing about these sensible Republicans. They must be looking for a leader by now.
“What you must have meant to refer to were FUNDAMENTALIST Christians, who believe in a word-for-word literal interpretation of the Bible, including the geologic age it purports.”
William Hedrick,
The distinction you make is a good one, which I and many others here fully understand. The problem is this. Evangelical Christians have continually deferred to Fundamentalist Christians on our national stage. By your silence, broken only by a small few, Fundamentalist Christians have become the “voice” of Christianity in this country. Those of us who are not of either theological position, while cognizant of this, believe that the onus is on those of your faith to distinguish themselves from those who would mold Christianity into their radical model.
BlindFaithiness,
Just what I was worried about. I assumed that the whole of Carolina gets its water from the mountain runoff. So drinking out of the Neuse River at Raleigh, is not recommended. And we all know where “mountain spring water” comes from—the tap of course. Paying for a fraudulent product.
Or was it the America government that we were talking about. Certain painful similarities.
Don’t tell me that there is a controlled for contamination downstream.
Remember the effluent from the coastal plain pig farms poisoning the Pamlico and Albemarle sounds?
Good ol’ Carolina. Went Red this time too.
I’m not sure about the exact chemical combination on the xmas trees, but probably a combination of insecticides and fungicides. Had to be harmful to humans/vertebrates too, otherwise the workers wouldn’t be in full suits with supplied air tanks(not just organic vapor masks). Also, these chems don’t just go into ground water. The slopes that trees are grown on are 30% grade and steeper with solid granite a few meters under the surface,, so runoff tends to go straight to the headwaters of minor then major waterways.
William Hedrick 1, December 1, 2012 at 8:08 am
First, you need to get your Christians straight, Mr. Turley. Not a good sign your article is credible. Evangelical Christians want to spread the word. There are probably as many evolutionists, or at least a good many in Evangelical churches as there are creationists. What you must have meant to refer to were FUNDAMENTALIST Christians, who believe in a word-for-word literal interpretation of the Bible, including the geologic age it purports. If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, use serious journalistic methods and make sure you understand the dynamic before attempting to educate others.
==========================================
Does that go for flat earthers too?
(About the Flat Earth Society)
Hubert Cumberdale 1, December 1, 2012 at 2:07 am
…
It is foolish for anyone, scientists included, to put an age to the earth, when we know full well that ten years from now, it will be something different.
===========================================
Yeah, the Earth will be ten years older ten years from now.
So will you, but it is not foolish to tell others how old you are.
They will get it, and will know you are not talking about 10 years from now.
First, you need to get your Christians straight, Mr. Turley. Not a good sign your article is credible. Evangelical Christians want to spread the word. There are probably as many evolutionists, or at least a good many in Evangelical churches as there are creationists. What you must have meant to refer to were FUNDAMENTALIST Christians, who believe in a word-for-word literal interpretation of the Bible, including the geologic age it purports. If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, use serious journalistic methods and make sure you understand the dynamic before attempting to educate others.
Mespo,
Do you think they’ll pull a Dante and go after the Pope or just say he’s not being Politically Correct?
Not bad for a Hitler Youth….. Blasphemy under any other name…..
So what is it that they spray on the xmas trees while they are still in the ground out there in NC? It kills bugs and of course runs off the tree and onto the ground and into the ground water and thence into the wells and thence into the drinking vasser? All for a greener tree in the living room that is bug free so that we can chum with the other pagans on the day that the xmas foks stole from us pagans on December 25th when the prophet Jesus was really born in July? And Pat Robertson says that the Athiests of all people Stole Christmas? And now he is siding with second grade science?
My Dog the world is shrinking.
Ariel,
I admire your capability to put names on these things that I recognize, but can’t name. They don’t teach them to engineers, and I had no time nor intersest to study them myself. Re syllogisms.
““That is not what it is…Abe said that he DISLIKED those who could not grow. He did NOY (sic) say that he liked ALL who could grow.” I wouldn’t give this to Gene H., he has a real problem with the syllogism.====
U was thinking of quoting the “all of the people some of the time!, but it was too long I felt.
As for Warrior script, never seen the like—but Monty Python was close at times aa was “Brasil”, also by a Pyton man (?) anw with Robert de NIro in cameo as the masked hero. Do you remember the first morning in the office and the fight over the “shared” desk.
Well, I shared a desk with two guys upon arriving at Grummans hanger “office” working on the man on the moon project. Guess they thought that we would produce more if we were at meetings and not at our desks. I think I spent =.000001 percent of my time at meetings. I was not important enough to rate a donut and coffee. But I did great stuff that nobody else could, so they kept me. 🙂
Ariel,
The really small ones not only evaporate, they radiate like hell. And they are still very heavy. Nothing like one to create a problem holding up the tree.
But you did not comment the hairy part. Surely you must.
Sorry to disappoint Bible scoffers but the Bible doesn’t say the earth is exactly 6,000 years old. In fact, no significance is placed on the age of the earth. There are passages that talk about the earth being “void and without form”, which could have been that way for thousands of years. If you run across someone who says the earth is EXACTLY 6,000 years old, and not a second more, they aren’t able to use the Bible to back up such claim.
We do find discrepancies in the alleged age of the earth today. Aside from the fact that the alleged age of the earth has increased exponentially over just a few decades, as scientists try their best to make a guess, there are discoveries that point to a relatively young earth as opposed to the usual x-billion year astronomical number that’s always bantered about with reckless abandon.
It is foolish for anyone, scientists included, to put an age to the earth, when we know full well that ten years from now, it will be something different. That’s testimony enough that no one really knows. The astronomical figures that are usually regurgitated are necessary to give some sort of validity to evolutionism – it makes it easier, if you will, to explain all the diverse life forms if the earth is x-billion years old. It is a problem, however, when you try to explain the discoveries that point to a relatively young earth (thousands of years old instead of billions of years) and try to rectify such with evolutionism. No one in their right mind would think evolution happened in several hundred thousand years – simply not enough time.
Science isn’t married to the astronomical figure of x-billion years or x-million years. Science simply means knowledge gained by observation. Science should – I repeat – SHOULD be open to the data that points to a relatively young earth (thousands of years) instead of millions or billions.
Hi, Hubert C.,
“Science simply means knowledge gained by observation. Science should – I repeat – SHOULD be open to the data that points to a relatively young earth (thousands of years) instead of millions or billions.” It should, and is, but the problem is that the data points elsewhere. If there were substantial data across disciplines that the Solar System were so young, we wouldn’t have 4.5 B for Earth. In fact if there were data in one discipline, geology for example, that the Earth were so young, the fight would be televised like MMA.
Since I use Merriam-Webster I’ll use “3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science. The earlier two were on states of knowledge and systematization. Your definition is too simple, but gives great latitude (I’ve dealt with yours for too many years.).
“Science isn’t married to the astronomical figure of x-billion years or x-million years” by astronomical do you mean “large” or determined by astronomy? Of course science isn’t married to x-whatever and you’ve acknowledged that with “….the alleged age of the earth has increased exponentially over just a few decades…”, though a few decades is roughly 8 to 10, but that parallels the change in our ability to measure and the newer understandings of our Universe. Hubble in ’23 showed what was thought to be internal structures of the Milky Way were actually external (they’re called Galaxies) and from there with each decade we’ve pushed back the age of the Universe. Science isn’t married to any age of Universe or Solar System, it’s just the more they look they older it gets. I expect the Universe to go up by another B before I die, barring a Bus tomorrow.
“It is foolish for anyone, scientists included, to put an age to the earth, when we know full well that ten years from now, it will be something different.” I agree if you mean nothing more than the tentative. As for something different, it likely will be older still, maybe not by much. The chance of a younger earth disappeared well over a hundred years ago with knowledge of radioactive decay.
OT your comment, [which is just the usual veiled attempt to go after evolution] when I was a kid planets were considered rare, abnormal occurrences, but since ’95 roughly they’ve discovered they were wrong. Likely the opposite in fact, and therefore many more chances of planets supporting life.
Hubert, we’ve done this before, many years ago. Your arguments haven’t changed, but your chance of being right has steadily declined. I have assiduously avoided being a fallacy nazi in all this.
“Science should – I repeat – SHOULD be open to the data that points to a relatively young earth (thousands of years) instead of millions or billions.”
Hubert,
Science IS always open to new data. I fear you are not. Yous are a person of
Faith and Faith is not open to new data by its definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith . If it works for you Hubert, live and be well. It’s when people of your faith try to impose it on education, women’s rights and other matters that I object. My “faith” is different then yours and I am as confident in mine as you are in yours. this is true for most people, but unfortunately in your writing you show a tendency to try to make your faith supreme. This connotes to me that you suffer from one or more of the “seven deadly sins” and that you know nothing of the “Golden Rule”.
What frankly said!
Blind Faithiness,
No disagreement here. We’ve used artificial for two decades, would’ve used living but I don’t want a pine tree in my backyard. Inappropriate. Either way, my attempt at black hole ornaments was less than satisfactory.
idealist707,
“That is not what it is…Abe said that he DISLIKED those who could not grow. He did NOY (sic) say that he liked ALL who could grow.” I wouldn’t give this to Gene H., he has a real problem with the syllogism.
You are right though, disliking those who do not grow does not imply liking all who grew, or all who could grow, or liking all the taller kids on your block who were shorter last year. Though I mix meanings of growth, words seldom having one meaning. Or even one good definition. (The 1979 movie “The Warriors” used the technique I’m using.)
I live in the Appalachian mountains near the east coast’s largest xmas tree producing county. I had to work in the area for a while. I saw guys in what basically looked like space suits(heavy-duty chem suits) constantly spraying chem on the trees growing on hundreds of acres of steep hillsides. Its the only way to keep the trees looking the way people expect them to look.
I used to fly fish in the streams and rivers that drained these same watersheds..
I’ll never get another xmas tree, I don’t think. I just can’t support the destruction and abuse of what was once treasured land and water just to have a pretty tree in the house for a month.
I also knew an organic farmer that had a small plot of unsprayed xmas trees(little firs or spruce; can’t remember) and the difference is striking. Still nice trees, but you get a house full of bugs along with the tree, plus things like lichens growing on the bark.
Not trying to tell anyone how to feel about the xmas tree market, but like many things, consumers are separated from the impacts/production methods of the product.
Malisha,
“This is all self interest on Robertsons part the quote “If you fight science, you’re going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was.”
Yep, a moment of lucidity. Self-interest is a great driving force for that.
“Many hairy black holes for you for Christmas. Hang them on your tree if you can.” I tried that but the really small ones evaporated, the larger ones ate the tree. I’ll go with traditional ornaments.
This may double post, as variation, but in response to pete,
All of us are to some degree irrational, or heaven forbid, “insane”, but have moments of lucidity. Give the man his moment. You likely won’t see it again.