Spurgeon Preached Old Earth Creationism

[PrincetonGuy]

“Relying on the opinions of celebrity preachers is not a new phenomenon in the church then. Kind Regards”

Point 1. Spurgeon was not just a celebrity preacher; he was a very well read man. See, for example: Commenting & CommentariesCatalogue

Point 2. I have not said that I agree with anything that Spurgeon preached.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm not asking about pre-flood layers. I'm asking you to explain how you get 420,000 layers (that's what they have from the Vostok core) laid down with just a few minutes between each layer with all the volcanism and climate change recorded in each layer. Assuming 1 year post flood we're looking at 1100 layers per day, thats 45-50 layers per hour. There's massive amounts of heat and energy required, yet you just want us to accept that it happened. It's your claim, so please explain how it could happen.

If the scientific interpretation differs from the Bible, I'll go with miracle.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Here is more on Spurgeon's views-- Charles H. Spurgeon and the Age of the Earth.

Thank you for sharing this with us!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If the scientific interpretation differs from the Bible, I'll go with miracle.

The bible says nothing about antarctic ice formation, and you're calling God deceptive (again). You choose to add to the bible - which is something the bible says quite a lot about. Proverbs 30:6 "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." That's pretty harsh.

 

[inquiring mind]

The bible says nothing about antarctic ice formation, and you're calling God deceptive (again). You choose to add to the bible - which is something the bible says quite a lot about. Proverbs 30:6 "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." That's pretty harsh.

You're insinuating God is deceptive, not me.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The bible says nothing about antarctic ice formation, and you're calling God deceptive (again). You choose to add to the bible - which is something the bible says quite a lot about. Proverbs 30:6 "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." That's pretty harsh.

So the writers of the New Testament were liars?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're insinuating God is deceptive, not me.

It's implied by the evidence and your insistence on a short age.

There are hundreds of thousands of layers in the Antarctic ice.
The layers are consistent with an annual deposition pattern.
There are radioactive markers consistent with the notion #layers = #years.
There are dust grains and volcanic ash in the layers that can be dated and are also consistent with the annual layer hypothesis.

Therefore, either:

1. The ice sheet is hundreds of thousands of years old and built by slow annual accumulation,

-OR-

2. The ice sheet is much younger and *someone* made it look like it does to provide indications of vast age.

If you want to pick #2, then someone is deceptive and that someone could not be a human.

This is your choice to resolve the evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's implied by the evidence and your insistence on a short age.

There are hundreds of thousands of layers in the Antarctic ice.
The layers are consistent with an annual deposition pattern.
There are radioactive markers consistent with the notion #layers = #years.
There are dust grains and volcanic ash in the layers that can be dated and are also consistent with the annual layer hypothesis.

Therefore, either:

1. The ice sheet is hundreds of thousands of years old and built by slow annual accumulation,

-OR-

2. The ice sheet is much younger and *someone* made it look like it does to provide indications of vast age.

If you want to pick #2, then someone is deceptive and that someone could not be a human.

This is your choice to resolve the evidence.

or, #3. God's Miracle, like the rest of Creation

 

[doubtingmerle]

If the scientific interpretation differs from the Bible, I'll go with miracle.

You cannot escape the process of science. Even if you assume the Bible writers were infallible--I don't--you still have the issue that it was delivered to you through the sciences of textual study and translation.

If you cannot trust the science of geology, how can you trust the science of textual analysis and translation?

If your textual scholars can make errors, then how is it that you are so certain, that when the Bible delivered by the textual scholars gives different information than the geology papers, that it is aways the geologists that are wrong? Are not both fallible and subject to error?

I find the science of geology to be highly reliable.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

or, #3. God's Miracle, like the rest of Creation

How does a miracle preclude deception? God made it look like hundreds of thousands of years when, in fact, it was only a few hours(?). That's deceptive, no matter how it was achieved.

 

[inquiring mind]

How does a miracle preclude deception? God made it look like hundreds of thousands of years when, in fact, it was only a few hours(?). That's deceptive, no matter how it was achieved.

That's lack of understanding on our part.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I define embedded age as "maturity without history."

Adam, for example, came into existence some twenty or thirty years old.

Can God create a dress tomorrow, so old it falls apart with age?

How is that in any way relevant to the question before us?

Again, we are looking at fossils in the earth that scientists say show the earth is many millions of years old. Where did these fossils come from. Christians who cannot accept that old age generally offer one of two objections.

1. Some say the earth was made with all those fossils and rocks down there on day one. This is the Omphalos hypothesis. You have written things that seem to agree with this, but now say you disagree with this.

2. Others say Noah's flood (and perhaps other OT catastrophies) account for most of the fossils down there. This is a central tenant of the Creation Science [sic] movement. You seem to now support this view based on the flood, while at the same time saying you disagree with virtually everything Creation Science says. That makes no sense.

Now you offer a view: "maturity without history". How does this in any way address the question before us? How did all those fossils get there?

 

[Hans Blaster]

or, #3. God's Miracle, like the rest of Creation

That was actually choice #2, but if you have chosen to believe that your god lied in the ice, that is on you.

 

[lismore]

It's implied by the evidence and your insistence on a short age.

There are hundreds of thousands of layers in the Antarctic ice.

Thousands of blizzards.

The layers are consistent with an annual deposition pattern.

The layers are consistent with thousands of blizzards.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Once again, this thinking reflects that of a very slow gradual build-up of everything in the layer, never considering the possibility that the layers of ice were also laid down quickly with a smorgasbord of snow contents belched up from a world being torn apart, and that could or could not be related to the time frame in which it was occurring. For scientists, it has to be a slow orderly process because that’s all they can understand, and have to keep that model throughout for TOE.

Let me guess. You never saw a paper by anybody who wrote about ice core dating in the peer reviewed literature. Nor does it appear that you ever read any significant writing that represents the peer reviewed literature on this topic.

Can I suggest you do that? Can you at least begin with Ice Core Dating ? If you really wanted to surprise us, you would digest some of the references listed there. Then you could come here with an understanding of the thing you are condemning.

The layers in the ice core are known to be annual layers. You say scientists never considered that many of the layers could have been layed down quickly. That is sheer nonsense. Scientists have studied these layers, and have offered convincing evidence that they are indeed annual layers.

Now if you had read, understood, and acknowledged what they wrote, and offered an informed rebuttal, you would get a very different reaction.

But if you keep on doing what you are doing, then I just might roll up my sleeves and preach a sermon on Proverbs 18:13: "He who answers a matter before he hears it—this is folly and disgrace to him."

 

[Astrid]

If the scientific interpretation differs from the Bible, I'll go with miracle.

Better if you said it in the first
place that its " LastThursdayism"
and a deceptive God who makes everything
look old.

And clarify that its not ""believe the Bible",as
such,
but belief in a personally CHOSEN INTERPRETATION.

It would have been a courtesy to say so
and not let us not waste
time, asssming a capacity that was never there

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thousands of blizzards.

The layers are consistent with thousands of blizzards.

*Hundreds* of thousands of "blizzards".

But the *much* bigger problem for the "young" age of the ice sheet is that the tracers embedded in the ice age at the 1 layer = 1 year rate.

 

[AV1611VET]

How is that in any way relevant to the question before us?

Again, we are looking at fossils in the earth that scientists say show the earth is many millions of years old. Where did these fossils come from. Christians who cannot accept that old age generally offer one of two objections.

1. Some say the earth was made with all those fossils and rocks down there on day one. This is the Omphalos hypothesis. You have written things that seem to agree with this, but now say you disagree with this.

2. Others say Noah's flood (and perhaps other OT catastrophies) account for most of the fossils down there. This is a central tenant of the Creation Science [sic] movement. You seem to now support this view based on the flood, while at the same time saying you disagree with virtually everything Creation Science says. That makes no sense.

Now you offer a view: "maturity without history". How does this in any way address the question before us? How did all those fossils get there?

We've discussed this before, haven't we?

Post 209

 

[Astrid]

*Hundreds* of thousands of "blizzards".

But the *much* bigger problem for the "young" age of the ice sheet is that the tracers embedded in the ice age at the 1 layer = 1 year rate.

As if they don't study the formation of
ice layers as the formmeach year.

Our creationist friends assume if they
never do their due diligence, neither does
anyone else.
It would be a gas to go up against such
a person in court. The more arrogantly
self assured the better.

 

[Bradskii]

If the scientific interpretation differs from the Bible, I'll go with miracle.

I guess an inquiring mind as defined by you is one that stops enquiring when the facts detract from previous beliefs.

Best state that upfront as it can save an enormous amount of time and effort all round.