Spurgeon Preached Old Earth Creationism

[Astrid]

4. I'm using common sense, which should also tell you that knowing all the actual conditions taking place supposedly millions of years ago is impossible.

Another strawman. Nobody
said ALL conditions.
But your scenario requires that
a whole different physics existed
just centuries ago.

Common sense? As if.

 

[Bradskii]

Can't argue that, but surely you would agree there is a difference in the measurement of physical miles and speculated lengths of time... wouldn't you?

We could be measuring height, weight, volume...you name it. If you're that far out, you are plainly wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I ignore very little here. Scientists measure and observe something today, which can be very accurate, but then they hypothesize not only the conditions of the past, but also assume they can measure it as if it was the same as today. They cannot be certain of that, and that’s why they use those 'mays', 'is more thans', and 'is abouts'.

Again you simply ignore that we can count 50,000 annual layers in the ice, and we have good evidence that these are indeed annual layers. I have given you a link that discusses how we know they are annual layers. You simply ignore it.

That link says:

The basis of this method lies with looking for items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner. Of these are items that depend on the temperature (colder in the winter and warmer in the summer) and solar irradience (less irradience in winter and more in summer). Once such markers of seasonal variations are found, they can be used to find the number of years that the ice-core accumulated over. This process is analagous to the counting of tree rings. A major disadvantage of these types of dating is that they are extremely time consuming.​

​

Of the temperature dependent markers the most important is the ratio of 18O to 16O. The water molecules composed of H2(18O) evaporate less rapidly and condense more readily then water molecules composed of H2(16O). Thus, water evaporating from the ocean it starts off H2(18O) poor. As the water vapor travels towards the poles it becomes increasingly poorer in H2(18O) since the heavier molecules tend to precipitate out first. This depletion is a temperature dependent process so in winter the precipitation is more enriched in H2(16O) than is the case in the summer. Thus, each annual layer starts 18O rich, becomes 18O poor, and ends up 18O rich.​

-- Ice Core Dating​

Can you please give us a process that will give you layers of 180 to 160 rich H2 content which are not based on annual processes? Can you please tell us why multiple other dating methods give consistent results with this method?

Saying there might possibly be such a process is not an answer. Do you have any evidence that such a process is possible?

The ice caps are clearly older than 50,000 years old. Thus, there could not have been a global flood in the last 50,000 years.

What evidence do you have that there was a global flood? All you can give us is a translation of a compilation of copies of copies of an ancient book in archaic Hebrew words that you say was perfect. Even if that book was perfect when first given, how do you know that your translation of a compilation of copies of copies of that book has no errors? If your copy could have errors, and it differs with the overwhelming scientific evidence, could it be mistaken on the fact of a global flood?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Some of the debris He probably sent to various places off the earth, some He buried in the ground by collocation,* some He left on the surface (white cliffs).

* The technical term for this is: "cleaning up."

Is that all? just two miles?

Has it occurred to you, Merle, that we human beings don't have x-ray vision; but there are other forms of life that do?

Like angels.

Any angels looking deep into the earth would see a series of layers of dead debris and animals, LAID DOWN IN AN ORDER THAT MOTHER NATURE CAN'T DO, and be reminded of the Flood?

Or do you think inside the box, to the point where you think God had only us humans in mind, when He cleaned up His mess?

Oh ... that's right.

Some people deny the spiritual world.

Then they can't understand anything, because everything they see, find, or assume should align with natural occurrences by way of uniformitarianism.

Yes -- in academia's fantasy world of stretched time.

The example I used recently is like stretching the street you live on to the length of 23,000,000 miles, then claiming you don't have any neighbors.

All 12 of those periods existed at the same time; but if you're going to stretch them out to a period of billions of years, then of course they are going to look like they came one after another.

Yes -- it would strain the imagination of someone thinking inside of a box the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

(Okay ... I'm exaggerating. The size of a pixel.)

The term you're looking for is "hydrological sorting."

That is correct.

Academia's gods (Gaia, Mother Nature, the Nine Muses) cannot do that.

It would take a miracle from the true God to do all that work.

Where they're supposed to come from.

Wow.

And how many inches deep would the white cliffs stack up to?

Yup -- don't forget the white cliffs that God swept up into neat piles and left here on the surface to remind us of the Flood.

(Not to mention meandering streams that etched serpentine designs into the earth's surface.)

Neat.

Neat.

Maybe God put them all over the earth in Genesis 1 in a split-second of time?

You know, like He did the trees and other gymnosperms?

AV1611VET, I must say you have an unusual view of the origin of the fossil record. Do you have a source on the Internet that agrees with you that God took all the junk from the flood and rearranged it into an orderly fossil record?

Many folks like Inquiring Mind suggest that the fossil record is the direct result of Noah's flood. You and I both agree that this is clearly impossible. A global flood would not create the fossil record the way it appears. So, dear sir, could you perhaps work with us to convince Inquiring Mind he is wrong?

I wish I could say you replace his view with something more credible, but no, I do not find your solution credible either. You have a micro-managing God who somehow comes in and rearranges all the fossils and debris to look as it does. The odd thing is, he chose to arrange it all such that it is very much like one would expect to see if the earth was old and evolution had indeed occurred in the way that other sciences know it to have happened. One wonders why a God, who could have arranged all the fossils any way he wanted, would have set them up deliberately to match what we would expect from the Theory of Evolution.

And your God arranged fossils in piles often 3 miles high throughout the world to impress the angels? If this is what he did, why didn't he at least arrange them in a way that wouldn't look like evolution? Hey, if the fossils on those white cliffs had clearly spelled out "AV1611VET IS THE MAN" in distinct letters, hey even I would be a believer.

Regarding the fossils being arranged by period, no, stretching out the time has nothing to do with it. The issue is that the fossils sort into periods, such as the Cambrian or Silurian. It makes no sense for God to sort millions of cubic miles of junk that he could arrange as he pleased.

And no, we did not stretch out the time. We are merely reporting what the facts say--millions of years.

Again, we see layer after layer of fossils as we go down through the earth, often more than 3 miles deep of fossils. How could all those animals have been alive at once? You do reply when I say this, but your responses don't even attempt to address the issue.

 

[AV1611VET]

And your God arranged fossils in piles often 3 miles high throughout the world to impress the angels? If this is what he did, why didn't he at least arrange them in a way that wouldn't look like evolution?

That's why He gave us Genesis 1.

So we would know AHEAD OF TIME what God did, how He did it, in what order He did it in, etc.

The angels know that too.

Quite well.

They were there when God created the earth, and even shouted for joy.

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

So God cleaning up the mess after the Flood has nothing to do with evolution, as the angels already know.

Yes ... God knew ahead of time that man would eventually come to see this mess and formulate a history of the earth based on how He cleaned up the mess.

But again, that's why He gave us Genesis 1.

So we wouldn't make the mistake of thinking those fossils point to evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

Some of these posts just make me sad.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That's why He gave us Genesis 1.

So we would know AHEAD OF TIME what God did, how He did it, in what order He did it in, etc.

The angels know that too.

Quite well.

They were there when God created the earth, and even shouted for joy.

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

So God cleaning up the mess after the Flood has nothing to do with evolution, as the angels already know.

Yes ... God knew ahead of time that man would eventually come to see this mess and formulate a history of the earth based on how He cleaned up the mess.

But again, that's why He gave us Genesis 1.

So we wouldn't make the mistake of thinking those fossils point to evolution.

So, if you were God you would send a flood to kill everything but a select few? Then you would take all the dead bodies, mix them with dirt, and stack them up miles high around the world such that the whole thing looked like evolution? Not finding enough of animals were killed in the flood to make up your artwork, you would then create thousands of bodies that never lived and throw them into the mix? And then you would fill in multiple layers of igneous rock such that they look like volcanoes throughout the record? You would also add animal footprints, animal nests, animal burrows and toothmarks on bones into the mix? You would be fully aware that this elaborate artwork would readily be accepted as evidence for evolution and an old earth, but you would form it that way anyway?

Having completed your magnificent deception you write down (in Hebrew) "Just kidding"? Does that about sum it up?

 

[inquiring mind]

The basis of this method lies with looking for items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner.

Do you not think there is a possibility that at least the lower layers could have been affected by something not consistent with test assumptions (please, there have to be some assumptions or it wouldn't be scientific)?

Can you please give us a process that will give you layers of 180 to 160 rich H2 content which are not based on annual processes?

Volcanic eruptions beyond your imagination, dust and gases that cause cooling, hot water from the fountains of the deep, evaporation and lots of snow (happening in a comparatively short period)

Can you please tell us why multiple other dating methods give consistent results with this method?

Can you assure me there were absolutely no like assumptions made in the different tests?

The ice caps are clearly older than 50,000 years old. Thus, there could not have been a global flood in the last 50,000 years.

What evidence do you have that there was a global flood?

The primary evidence is Genesis. I recently read an article about the father of microbial biogeography, Martinus Beijerinck, who said “everything is everywhere, but the environment selects.” What mechanism do you suppose did that?

 

[inquiring mind]

Some of these posts just make me sad.

But, are you learning anything?

 

[Astrid]

Do you not think there is a possibility that at least the lower layers could have been affected by something not consistent with test assumptions (please, there have to be some assumptions or it wouldn't be scientific)?

Volcanic eruptions beyond your imagination, dust and gases that cause cooling, hot water from the fountains of the deep, evaporation and lots of snow (happening in a comparatively short period)

Can you assure me there were absolutely no like assumptions made in the different tests?

The primary evidence is Genesis. I recently read an article about the father of microbial biogeography, Martinus Beijerinck, who said “everything is everywhere, but the environment selects.” What mechanism do you suppose did that?

Genesis is not evidence.
It tells a tale of fantastical events that
left no trace, zero evidence of any kind.
IF I were to believe in a vengeful god
who got ticked off at the trifles the bible
speaks of, I'd think it real prudent not to
risk facing him when he inquired into
just why I recklessly accused him of
such a horrendous and sickening
mass murder.

But here you are just making up " facts"
willy nilly to try to prove you are right.

Why dont more Christians recognize honesty
as a essential virtue?

It's really weird and disturbing, and a
reason I fully support govt efforts to
restrict the religion.

 

[Bradskii]

But, are you learning anything?

I'm afraid so...

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that about sum it up?

Not ... even ... close.

Wow.

You have no idea what I believe, do you?

Join the crowd.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis is not evidence.
It tells a tale of fantastical events that left no trace, zero evidence of any kind.

But don't let that stop you from asking for some; then putting someone on IGNORE because he answered your questions to the best of his ability.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm afraid so...

* cough *

 

[doubtingmerle]

Inquiring mind, you continue to question the findings of science, but refuse to question the translation of the compilation of copies of copies of Genesis that you hold in your hands. Why is that? Even if you think the Bible as originally written is the perfect word of God (incidentally, a claim I dispute) how do you know your copy might not have errant text about the flood and age of the earth?

Science never knows anything with absolute certainty. But I think scientists agree that the chance that the icecaps are younger than 20,000 years old is well under one in a billion billion. Of course, if you could show that the odds that your Bible is wrong about the age of the earth is zero in a billion billion, then you could claim this trumps science. But you have not made one attempt to support your trust in a book that was delivered to you by an extremely error-prone process.

You grasp at remote possibilities of errors in science (with no evidence for your claims). You refuse to acknowledge sources of error in your own source, your copy of the Bible, which is known to have been given to you by faulty process. That, my friend, is special pleading.

Do you not think there is a possibility that at least the lower layers could have been affected by something not consistent with test assumptions (please, there have to be some assumptions or it wouldn't be scientific)?

Yes, of course, scientists acknowledge possible sources of error.

In the case of ice cores, the evidence from many different methods is overwhelmingly in agreement that the ice caps are old. See Ice core - Wikipedia.

Volcanic eruptions beyond your imagination, dust and gases that cause cooling, hot water from the fountains of the deep, evaporation and lots of snow (happening in a comparatively short period)

"Possible, therefore probable". That is a fallacy.

Can you point to a single peer-reviewed source that says that volcanic eruptions and hot water releases from the deep can throw the cumulative ice core measurements off by an order of magnitude? (Don't even bother looking. The answer is, no.)

And how do you even know there were volcano eruptions beyond our imagination 5000 years ago? Science finds no evidence of this.

Can you assure me there were absolutely no like assumptions made in the different tests?

The methods are quite independent. See the link I provided.

Can you assure me there were absolutely no assumptions made by your translators?

The primary evidence is Genesis

Correction. The primary evidence for you is your interpretation of a translation of a compilation of a copy of a copy of an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.

I recently read an article about the father of microbial biogeography, Martinus Beijerinck, who said “everything is everywhere, but the environment selects.” What mechanism do you suppose did that?

Huh? What are you getting at?

 

[Astrid]

Inquiring mind, you continue to question the findings of science, but refuse to question the translation of the compilation of copies of copies of Genesis that you hold in your hands. Why is that? Even if you think the Bible as originally written is the perfect word of God (incidentally, a claim I dispute) how do you know your copy might not have errant text about the flood and age of the earth?

Science never knows anything with absolute certainty. But I think scientists agree that the chance that the icecaps are younger than 20,000 years old is well under one in a billion billion. Of course, if you could show that the odds that your Bible is wrong about the age of the earth is zero in a billion billion, then you could claim this trumps science. But you have not made one attempt to support your trust in a book that was delivered to you by an extremely error-prone process.

You grasp at remote possibilities of errors in science (with no evidence for your claims). You refuse to acknowledge sources of error in your own source, your copy of the Bible, which is known to have been given to you by faulty process. That, my friend, is special pleading.


Yes, of course, scientists acknowledge possible sources of error.

In the case of ice cores, the evidence from many different methods is overwhelmingly in agreement that the ice caps are old. See Ice core - Wikipedia.

"Possible, therefore probable". That is a fallacy.

Can you point to a single peer-reviewed source that says that volcanic eruptions and hot water releases from the deep can throw the cumulative ice core measurements off by an order of magnitude? (Don't even bother looking. The answer is, no.)

And how do you even know there were volcano eruptions beyond our imagination 5000 years ago? Science finds no evidence of this.


The methods are quite independent. See the link I provided.

Can you assure me there were absolutely no assumptions made by your translators?

Correction. The primary evidence for you is your interpretation of a translation of a compilation of a copy of a copy of an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.


Huh? What are you getting at?

Ever see a yec rebuttal that didn't check
several boxes on the intellectual dishonesty
master list?
Double standards such as you noted are a common
as dirt bit of intellectual dishonesty
I wonder how many people are even aware of
what they are doing.
Feynman pointed out the easiest person to fool
is one's self.
Double standards, misrepresentation, etc don't fool the reader.

 

[driewerf]

Can't argue that, but surely you would agree there is a difference in the measurement of physical miles and speculated lengths of time... wouldn't you?

These lengths of time aren't speculated.

 

[Frank Robert]

But, are you learning anything?

What I am learning is that creationists do not have a high school level understanding of science in general and evolution in particular. It is ok to disagree but all creationists appear to understand is that evolution contradicts their belief and they do so lacking even a minimal understanding of either science or evolution.

 

[inquiring mind]

Inquiring mind, you continue to question the findings of science, but refuse to question the translation of the compilation of copies of copies of Genesis that you hold in your hands. Why is that? Even if you think the Bible as originally written is the perfect word of God (incidentally, a claim I dispute) how do you know your copy might not have errant text about the flood and age of the earth?

Science never knows anything with absolute certainty. But I think scientists agree that the chance that the icecaps are younger than 20,000 years old is well under one in a billion billion. Of course, if you could show that the odds that your Bible is wrong about the age of the earth is zero in a billion billion, then you could claim this trumps science. But you have not made one attempt to support your trust in a book that was delivered to you by an extremely error-prone process.

You grasp at remote possibilities of errors in science (with no evidence for your claims). You refuse to acknowledge sources of error in your own source, your copy of the Bible, which is known to have been given to you by faulty process. That, my friend, is special pleading.


Yes, of course, scientists acknowledge possible sources of error.

In the case of ice cores, the evidence from many different methods is overwhelmingly in agreement that the ice caps are old. See Ice core - Wikipedia.

"Possible, therefore probable". That is a fallacy.

Can you point to a single peer-reviewed source that says that volcanic eruptions and hot water releases from the deep can throw the cumulative ice core measurements off by an order of magnitude? (Don't even bother looking. The answer is, no.)

And how do you even know there were volcano eruptions beyond our imagination 5000 years ago? Science finds no evidence of this.


The methods are quite independent. See the link I provided.

Can you assure me there were absolutely no assumptions made by your translators?

Correction. The primary evidence for you is your interpretation of a translation of a compilation of a copy of a copy of an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.


Huh? What are you getting at?

Ever see a yec rebuttal that didn't check
several boxes on the intellectual dishonesty
master list?
Double standards such as you noted are a common
as dirt bit of intellectual dishonesty
I wonder how many people are even aware of
what they are doing.
Feynman pointed out the easiest person to fool
is one's self.
Double standards, misrepresentation, etc don't fool the reader.

If you check out the history of my posts, you will see that I’m not a YEC in the absolute sense, and have also questioned that stance. I have said over and over that I’m more of a ‘we do not know’ guy. I hate to mention it again, but I’ve indicated repeatedly that ‘time’ could be the wild card that prevents us from ever knowing. We do not understand time in the least and any deep time occurrence, those beyond actual observation (which could be another thing altogether), which you put a date stamp on is questionable. I think we were dropped a hint to that effect in Psalm 90:4 and again in 2 Peter 3:8.

This is a Creation and Evolution Forum and as such creationists are going to question science when it ‘seems to’ differ from our only source of authority in the matter. These people know that the Bible has been scrutinized more than any other work and yet it still remains the most important gauge when seeking the truth, and I’d venture to say there are even scientists who carry one to church on Sunday.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I am learning is that creationists do not have a high school level understanding of science in general and evolution in particular. It is ok to disagree but all creationists appear to understand is that evolution contradicts their belief and they do so lacking even a minimal understanding of either science or evolution.

I don't need to understand botany to enjoy the smell of a lovely flower.