Pat Robertson Mocks Christians for Believing Creation Account

TBN’s resident superincentarian pontificator, Pat Robertson, recently made fun of Christians for believing God made the world like the Bible says. Atheists and God-mockers are having a hoot over it. Robertson – who believes that he has the power to put up forcefields against hurricanes – doesn’t believe God has the capacity to create the world ex nihilo or tell a story correctly.

On his 700 Club program, Robertson made the claim that it’s “foolish” to think God made the world in six days.

Robertson said, “… I don’t think most Christians are stupid enough to believe that other…The other is the Ussher theory…if you added all the generations from Adam until the current time, and you say, “Alright, that adds up to 7,000. Okay. And so, therefore, the Earth’s only 7000 years old.” Well, that’s just nonsense.

He went on, “I mean, there are just too many geological factors, too many things that have happened on our Earth. The Earth is about 14 billion years old, and there’s just no question about it.

Standing in the way between Christians and God’s account of creation are…dinosaurs.

Robertson said, “You’ve got the dinosaurs. You’ve got all the things that have happened on this Earth. And there’s too much geology, I mean, it’s just established science. So the idea of having a 6-7,000-year Earth is just…It’s just…Any Christians who believe that, just, I’m telling you that, they aren’t very up on today’s…I believe science! I mean, let’s face it! You know, God didn’t…This whole planet was set up for God’s purpose. The universe is tuned for life. But it didn’t get here in 6-7,000 years! It got here over…almost 14 billion years to get this Earth to where it is right now.”

Watch below.

Of course, when Jesus made really good wine for his first public miracle in the Gospel of John, it would have appeared to one’s taste-buds to be 6 or so years old (wine only gets better with time to a point, and six or seven years is the peak age for taste). One would presume if the wine was tested in a lab or placed under a microscope, it might have indeed appeared to have been six or seven years old.

But it wasn’t. Jesus made it afresh with six vats of water (ahem).

If someone came upon Adam on the 8th or 9th day they would have presumed that he was twenty or thirty (or however many) God made him to appear. But he would have been only a few days old.

If someone saw Eve the day after she was formed from Adam’s rib, they would have sworn she was a post-pubescent woman in her teens or twenties. But she would have been only a day old.

If someone came upon the world on the 4th Day of Creation and seen the mighty oaks and fruit trees and lush vegetation on the face of the earth they might presume it had been hear for decades or centuries…but they would have been wrong.

Likewise, Pat Robertson is wrong. And he’s also a fool (on numerous levels).

Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar… (Romans 3:4)

[HT These godless yokels for the transcript]

11 thoughts on “Pat Robertson Mocks Christians for Believing Creation Account

    1. How true. Creation in 6 days is as absurd as the Bodily Resurrection or the Virgin Birth or even the existence of God. There is just no basis for in Science for any miracles or any of the Christian beliefs.

    2. The post above is meant to say this:

      “How true. Creation in 6 days is as absurd as the Bodily Resurrection or the Virgin Birth or even the existence of God. There is just no basis in Science for any miracles for any of the Christian beliefs. – sarcasm tag”

      How I truly hate autocorrect and the lack of support for tags.

      1. Thanks for clarifying! I was concerned for you when I read your original post! I too find it strange when people want to pick and choose which miraculous events in the Bible they will believe or not believe. I am a firm believer that if you abandon the literal creation account in Genesis, you allow for any other truths of scripture to be abandoned as well…

  1. Thank goodness we have Pat Robertson to tell us what parts of God’s Word we can believe and which parts we can’t! As for me, as a career geologist who has spent thousands of hours in the field unraveling geologic puzzles in the mining business and other geology-related wok over the years, I can tell you that most geologic conditions are pretty agnostic as far as creationism vs uniformitarianism goes, but I have encountered many situations which can only be explained by a Biblical approach. Now, the Bible is not a science text book and nobody claims it is, but the overlying scenarios described in the Genesis account really do hold up to scientific scrutiny. For instance, the vast majority of the geology record is catastrophic events, not the millions of years of quiescent deposition of sediments one would expect in a uniformitarian geologic scenario – those records are actually very rare in the geologic record. Admittedly, there are things that are hard to explain based on our present knowledge, but the same holds true for the uniformitarian approach that I was taught in school, as well. After examining the geologic evidence in the field, I have become convinced that a lot of what I was taught in college was wrong. Of course, a lot of what I was taught in college geology classes was declared to be wrong anyway when the whole geosyncline approach to macro-geology (which had been around since the days of Hutton) was replaced wholesale by plate tectonics as being the geologic equivalent of 42 as the answer to life, the universe and everything. So how could they have been so wrong for so long about something so basic? Did the underlying evidence change? Nope – the evidence has always been the same. The underlying geology sure hasn’t changed. It’s how we interpret the evidence. I choose to interpret the evidence in light of the Bible and think I am on pretty strong ground there based on actual observations in the field. Call me old-fashioned and out-of-date in these days of agenda-driven science, but I really do like to have the evidence drive my conclusions, not the other way around.

    1. “Confirmation bias” supports belief in that which one already believes. The previous comment and most Baptist sermons exemplify.

  2. Wait, have we heard from Jack Van Impe yet about the subject and his wife, Rexella? Oh no, I just found out Jack died in January so I guess not.

  3. “Is Genesis History?” is an excellent documentary proving that what the Bible says is true. Let the scoffers scoff and the mockers mock. I don’t care. Truth is on the Christian’s side. Evolution is a theory that was made to remove God from the creation account. Any person who capitulates to it, is not intelligent or modern, they are a fool most to be pitied.

  4. Darwin was a racist so why are we still touting his “theories?” He believed the white “race” was superior to all and the black “race” was the most inferior. Therefore Darwin is now cancelled and we shall all believe the Bible, finally!
    By the way, I put race in quotes because there is only one race just as the Bible teaches and science confirms!
    “Some trust in chariots. We trust in the name of the Lord our God”
    As for Robertson, well… just pray

  5. Genesis 1:14 suggests that God created time after he created space. Where is the problem of God creating infinite space-time say 7000 years ago? In fact, it seems it was created in several passes. During the first passes, there was infinite space without time or life; then there was infinite space-time with no life, and in the end, life was added to the infinite space-time. Once, time and life were added, life may have evolved in time, but it would be a subtly guided evolution, not a blind one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *