Spurgeon Preached Old Earth Creationism

[Astrid]

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.

YEC is not precisely defined. You check many
of the boxes. If you like a different acronym, tell us.

As for questiinong science- if you like exact words,
little that we see from creationists is "questioning".

We see assertions, strawman, made up facts,
arguments from authority ignorance and incredulity:
there may not be fallacy or cheesy debate tactic that
isn't used.
Few actual questions, far fewer honest ones.
And, in my experience, zero acceptance of any
answers.

Of course there are religious scientists.
This has been gone over ten thousand times.

There is nothing in belief in god that needs to
be incompatible with intellectual honesty which
IS, as you may know, essential to science.

Some though, go off the rail as in a Dr. K Wise, PhD
paleontology, quote: " ....even if all the evidence
incthe universe turns against yec, i woll still be
yec as that is what the bible seems to indicate'.
There's a scientist who carries a bible.
There's a guy who is the living personofication of intellectual dishinesty.

But back to questions
Questions and doubt are essential to science.

Questions from creationists are welcome.
Try to ask good ones.

 

[Frank Robert]

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

Thank you affirming my premise. Of course you don't need to understand botany to enjoy the flower's scent, but if you want to know why the flower smells the way it does you need to understand some basic principles of both botany and evolution. From a theistic point, God may have planned the flower to smell in a particular way but he did so for a reason and the flower evolved in that way God planned.

 

[inquiring mind]

YEC is not precisely defined. You check many
of the boxes. If you like a different acronym, tell us.

As for questiinong science- if you like exact words,
little that we see from creationists is "questioning".

We see assertions, strawman, made up facts,
arguments from authority ignorance and incredulity:
there may not be fallacy or cheesy debate tactic that
isn't used.
Few actual questions, far fewer honest ones.
And, in my experience, zero acceptance of any
answers.

Of course there are religious scientists.
This has been gone over ten thousand times.

There is nothing in belief in god that needs to
be incompatible with intellectual honesty which
IS, as you may know, essential to science.

Some though, go off the rail as in a Dr. K Wise, PhD
paleontology, quote: " ....even if all the evidence
incthe universe turns against yec, i woll still be
yec as that is what the bible seems to indicate'.
There's a scientist who carries a bible.
There's a guy who is the living personofication of intellectual dishinesty.

But back to questions
Questions and doubt are essential to science.

Questions from creationists are welcome.
Try to ask good ones.

So. the wheels on the bus go around... ok then.

 

[Astrid]

So. the wheels on the bus go around... ok then.

So no real questions?
Or are you just being dismissive

 

[Ophiolite]

So no real questions?
Or are you just being dismissive

It sounded dismissive. That said, I think I'd rather be on a bus that is moving somewhere, than trapped in a hamster wheel. But then the hamsters I have seen seemed happy enough.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It sounded dismissive. That said, I think I'd rather be on a bus that is moving somewhere, than trapped in a hamster wheel. But then the hamsters I have seen seemed happy enough.

This board has too many hamsters.

 

[AV1611VET]

This board has too many hamsters.

I thought we were sheeples?

 

[inquiring mind]

Huh? What are you getting at?

Questions from creationists are welcome.
Try to ask good ones.

Microbial distribution is not restricted by geographical distance, “everything is everywhere.” I say the Flood could’ve done that. What mechanism does science have to explain it? Not saying there isn't one, just trying to ask good questions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Microbial distribution is not restricted by geographical distance, “everything is everywhere.” I say the Flood could’ve done that. What mechanism does science have to explain it? Not saying there isn't one, just trying to ask good questions.

What are you referring to?

The presence of microbe throughout the planet? (They've been evolving for billions of years. Plenty of time to spread out.)

The distribution and genetic relations of particular microbes?

Something else?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Microbial distribution is not restricted by geographical distance, “everything is everywhere.” I say the Flood could’ve done that. What mechanism does science have to explain it? Not saying there isn't one, just trying to ask good questions.

As Hans pointed out, there was plenty of time for microbes to spread. Also, with ships crisscrossing the planet for centuries (and later planes) there was plenty of opportunity for microbes to spread around the globe, e.g., Covid-19.

 

[Astrid]

.

Microbial distribution is not restricted by geographical distance, “everything is everywhere.” I say the Flood could’ve done that. What mechanism does science have to explain it? Not saying there isn't one, just trying to ask good questions.

It's an odd statement. Microbes are
certainly restricted in their distribution.
There's a species found only at the roots
of human eyelashes.

A more apt observation about
" flood and ark" and geographic distance
brings up questions like how did blind
worm snakes get to the ark from Oz,
or dodo birds from their island in
the Indian Ocean, or, ftm, make a return
trip.

 

[Astrid]

As Hans pointed out, there was plenty of time for microbes to spread. Also, with ships crisscrossing the planet for centuries (and later planes) there was plenty of opportunity for microbes to spread around the globe, e.g., Covid-19.

Insects have been found thousands of feet
up, carried by winds. Dust, bits of vegetation
etc carrying microbes can easily cross oceans.

Trash from Fukushima washed ashore alomg the US coast.

 

[inquiring mind]

Insects have been found thousands of feet
up, carried by winds. Dust, bits of vegetation
etc carrying microbes can easily cross oceans.

Trash from Fukushima washed ashore alomg the US coast.

Imagine what the catastrophic conditions during the Flood did.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Imagine what the catastrophic conditions during the Flood did.

Imagine is all you've got unless you have *actual* evidence.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Imagine what the catastrophic conditions during the Flood did.

Correct. Imagine all that brackish water spread over the world for a year. The earth would have been destroyed. What did the animals eat when they got out of the ark (besides each other)?

 

[Ophiolite]

Imagine what the catastrophic conditions during the Flood did.

And yet, strangely, the majority of sediments (now lithified to rock) around the world do not display the characteristics of sediments deposited in floods. Desert deposits, slow accumulating deep sea clays, beach sands, reefs, delta foresets, etc., and also flood deposits, but in a minority. How do you account for that?

 

[AV1611VET]

... or, ftm, make a return trip.

The same way Philip got to Azotus in Acts 8?

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct. Imagine all that brackish water spread over the world for a year. The earth would have been destroyed. What did the animals eat when they got out of the ark (besides each other)?

Olives?

Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Correct. Imagine all that brackish water spread over the world for a year. The earth would have been destroyed. What did the animals eat when they got out of the ark (besides each other)?

One scenario is that there were massive floating mats of vegetation where plants could grow. As the water subsided, the mats came to rest on the earth and now you have flora as well as flora. Noah's family had to eat. No doubt they took plenty of seed for crops with them in the ark. There was fodder for the non-carnivorous animals. And yes, animals do eat other animals. They had a year and a month to breed. Many animals produce large litters. There would have been enough food for the very small population of animals.

 

[Astrid]

Imagine what the catastrophic conditions during the Flood did.

I just pointed out " uniform distribution" is a crock,
and that distribution by known means is sufficient
anyway.

Just TRY getting to a place where mold spores
won't find you.

No need for flights of fantasy about a catastrophe
that did not happen.
Just for one, there would be a world wide 'flood
stratum" that would be easily distinguished.
There isn't.
There should be lots of sediment on the ocean
floor, not just on land. There isnt.

You forgot to account for the Australian worm snakes.