Ken Ham Challenges Pat Robertson To A Debate On Young Earth Creationism

#1
This is a debate I'd like to see.
For those that don't know either of the two gents I'll fill you in a bit.
Ken Ham is a American creationist whom owns and operates the site called Answers in Genesis
Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism, rejecting the scientific consensus on the reality of common descent and on the age of the Earth. It also advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis and claims the correct interpretation of nature reveals the Bible to be scientifically accurate.[2] The organization has offices in the United Kingdom and the United States. It had offices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, but in 2006 these seceded to form Creation Ministries International.
Pat Robertson is an fundamentalist American Televangelist and head of the 700 hundred Club
Creation Museum founder Ken Ham is once again furious that Pat Robertson has mocked proponents of Young Earth Creationism, and now wants to appear on the “700 Club” to debate the televangelist.

Ham, who recently held a debate with Bill Nye, said in a blog post today that he is willing to debate Robertson either on the “700 Club” or at Regent University, the school founded by Robertson.

I wonder if Pat Robertson would be prepared to discuss these issues with me or one of our AiG scientists on the 700 Club? Or maybe in some sort of debate format at Regent University? We are certainly willing to do that—maybe all of you reading this could challenge CBN/Regent University to allow such a discussion, debate, or forum to occur publicly. I wonder if Pat Robertson, who is allowed to state these things so publicly through CBN will agree to have his statements publicly challenged and tested!
The Creationist leader yesterday accused Robertson of heresy:
*Pat Robertson Says 'You Have To Be Deaf, Dumb And Blind' To Believe In Young Earth Creationism -
Many Christians believe that the world is very old based on fossil records that are presumably dated at millions of years. Indeed the dispute between an old earth and a young earth is hotly debated within the Christian community. Unfortunately, those who subscribe to an old earth theory do not realize the enormity of their compromise.

The compromise is that as soon as one allows for an earth millions of years old, then one has accepted death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before Adam’s sin. In other words, the Garden of Eden would have been seated upon a mountain of dead animal bones. This doesn’t sound much like paradise.



Now if the world were millions of years old as suggested by evolutionists, blood was shed and death occurred before Adam's original sin. This would destroy the foundation of the atonement brought by the death of Christ on the cross. According to 1 Corinthians 15:54, sin and death have been swallowed up in victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the enormity of compromise is revealed. To believe in evolution undermines the entire gospel message of Jesus Christ. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ suffered physical death and shed His blood because death was the penalty for sin. Therefore, teaching millions of years of death, disease and suffering before Adam sinned, is a direct attack on the foundation and message of the Cross - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...-young-earth-creationism#sthash.iBTd0ZPL.dpuf
*
Fielding a question about the age of the Earth on today’s “700 Club,” Pat Robertson once again criticized Young Earth Creationists who believe the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Robertson, who earlier this year described Young Earth Creationism as “a joke,” today said, “You have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that this Earth that we live in only has 6,000 years of existence, it just doesn’t, I’m sorry.”

“To deny the clear record that’s there before us makes us looks silly,” he said. “There’s no way that all this that you have here took place in 6,000 years, it just couldn’t have been done, couldn’t possibly have been done.”
Robertson may have to take this up with his own TV network, which promotes Young Earth Creationist material and publishes articles claiming that opposition to Young Earth Creationism is heretical.

Many Christians believe that the world is very old based on fossil records that are presumably dated at millions of years. Indeed the dispute between an old earth and a young earth is hotly debated within the Christian community. Unfortunately, those who subscribe to an old earth theory do not realize the enormity of their compromise.

The compromise is that as soon as one allows for an earth millions of years old, then one has accepted death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before Adam’s sin. In other words, the Garden of Eden would have been seated upon a mountain of dead animal bones. This doesn’t sound much like paradise.



Now if the world were millions of years old as suggested by evolutionists, blood was shed and death occurred before Adam's original sin. This would destroy the foundation of the atonement brought by the death of Christ on the cross. According to 1 Corinthians 15:54, sin and death have been swallowed up in victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the enormity of compromise is revealed. To believe in evolution undermines the entire gospel message of Jesus Christ. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ suffered physical death and shed His blood because death was the penalty for sin. Therefore, teaching millions of years of death, disease and suffering before Adam sinned, is a direct attack on the foundation and message of the Cross. - See 3 minute video at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...-young-earth-creationism#sthash.2ZjciY1i.dpuf
Ken Ham would believe to some extent the old 1960's cartoon series and recent movies The Flintstones is an accurate portrayal of human and dinosaurs coexisting.
 
Last edited:
#11
Thanks for bringing this up, Steve. I was surprised to see this. I've been under the impression that believers in one form of wackiness seem to be forgiving of others' beliefs in different forms of wackiness (e.g. various alt-med practitioners support rather than criticize other methods despite the wholly contradictory 'science'). I would be an interesting social study to watch the debate, although I don't see anything which suggests Robertson is going to take Ham up on the challenge.

Linda
 
#12
Thanks for bringing this up, Steve. I was surprised to see this. I've been under the impression that believers in one form of wackiness seem to be forgiving of others' beliefs in different forms of wackiness (e.g. various alt-med practitioners support rather than criticize other methods despite the wholly contradictory 'science'). I would be an interesting social study to watch the debate, although I don't see anything which suggests Robertson is going to take Ham up on the challenge.

Linda
I think there's truth to your observation. It's evident on the old skeptiko site and yet where you'd think seemingly likeminded people would agree one finds divisions as observed among creationists. It reminds of the JREF and that thing Phil Plait ask "Don't be a dick" where generally likeminded will and did turn on each other as easily as when they are talking to someone spouting nonsense.
It's something I don't really understand. If the Ham, Robertson debate were to happen (I don't think it will) it would be an interesting social study.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#14
I don't see how this debate is relevant. Can you explain?
I think Steve001 has created a grand narrative for himself where posting on this forum is part of a great battle against irrationality.

It's part of the skeptical evangelist faith, where "irrationality", meaning anything having to do with immaterialism, must be resisted by the apparently meaningful act of internet trolling. Basically the materialist evangelist's version of Chaoskampf.
 
#15
I think Steve001 has created a grand narrative for himself where posting on this forum is part of a great battle against irrationality.

It's part of the skeptical evangelist faith, where "irrationality", meaning anything having to do with immaterialism, must be resisted by the apparently meaningful act of internet trolling. Basically the materialist evangelist's version of Chaoskampf.
In support of Sciborg, Fundamental consciousness does not have to do away with matter at all. Like the D. Radin post, he sees matter and mind as being two sides of the same coin. Moreover, fundamental consciousness does not reject evolution in any way. Concurrently, parapsychologists do not reject evolution either.
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#16
Fundamental consciousness does not have to do away with matter at all. Like the D. Radin post, he sees matter and mind as being two sides of the same coin. Moreover, fundamental consciousness does not reject evolution at all.
When someone is acting out the drama of Chaoskampf to aggrandize their actions, it's better not to let little details like that get in the way...
 
#17
I think Steve001 has created a grand narrative for himself where posting on this forum is part of a great battle against irrationality.

It's part of the skeptical evangelist faith, where "irrationality", meaning anything having to do with immaterialism, must be resisted by the apparently meaningful act of internet trolling. Basically the materialist evangelist's version of Chaoskampf.
That's what you think. It's surprising you don't know the argument is political in nature not over irrationality.
 
#19
(e.g. various alt-med practitioners support rather than criticize other methods despite the wholly contradictory 'science').

Linda
Well they're not reactionary like you, Linda. Many folks are involved in the process of creation rather than destruction. All you do is criticize, because you're incapable of forming ideas of your own. You reflexively react to your environment like a primitive beast. Indeed, you are of a low-grade intellect and you try to compensate for this by attempting to critique people who can actually think for themselves, as to put yourself on their level. You are no doubt the product of indoctrination. I find it amusing that you probably think you're clever. That is, when you are able to formulate a coherent reaction.
 
#20
Well they're not reactionary like you, Linda. Many folks are involved in the process of creation rather than destruction. All you do is criticize, because you're incapable of forming ideas of your own. You reflexively react to your environment like a primitive beast. Indeed, you are of a low-grade intellect and you try to compensate for this by attempting to critique people who can actually think for themselves, as to put yourself on their level. You are no doubt the product of indoctrination. I find it amusing that you probably think you're clever. That is, when you are able to formulate a coherent reaction.
Oh, I do believe we've hit a nerve. It's good to see you have a serious side to you.
 
Top