Spurgeon Preached Old Earth Creationism

[AV1611VET]

Brace for SEDI

In the case of the Flood, it's not the evidence that matters, it's WHERE that evidence is now.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Having done a dual major, biology / geology I
have some familiarity with the topics here.

Cool. Can I ask you some questions?

1. I heard that 50% of the rock above the Precambrian layer is igneous (volcanic). If so, that presents a huge challenge to believers in flood geology. Is that the correct figure?

2. I heard that the average depth of rocks above the Precambrian layer is 2 miles worldwide. I see now that the depth on land is about twice the depth in the ocean, so perhaps that number just applies to continents. Is that true?. Again, this would be a huge challenge to believers in flood geology.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Speaking for myself, you'll notice that I don't dispute what geologists are looking at.

If they say they see A then B then C then D then ETC three miles down, I don't dispute it.

What I disagree with though, are their conclusions.

That is, how those layers got there.

Some say it was a jillion years of natural process that layered them, while others say it was hydrological sorting that layered them.

I don't agree with either.

If your hypothesis involves "then a miracle happened" that immediately makes me question. You have heard many claims of miracles. And I think you would agree with me that most claims of miracles aren't really miracles. Some claims perhaps, but certainly not the majority.

So in Bayesian terms, the prior for your hypothesis is low. Since it relies on a miracle, you had better have an extremely good match to the evidence (the consequence).

Alas the evidence all looks like what we would expect if life had evolved over millions of years. None of it looks like what we would expect if God had done a miraculous cleanup after the flood.

So you fail in both regards. Your claim is extremely unlikely by a simple smell test, and the evidence is not at all what your hypothesis would predict. You make an extraordinary claim, and do not even come close to ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Alas the evidence all looks like what we would expect if life had evolved over millions of years. None of it looks like what we would expect if God had done a miraculous cleanup after the flood.

Simply compare what you see only three miles down, with the ORDER of the creation events during the creation week.

If that doesn't yell GOD DID IT, what will?

 

[Astrid]

Cool. Can I ask you some questions?

1. I heard that 50% of the rock above the Precambrian layer is igneous (volcanic). If so, that presents a huge challenge to believers in flood geology. Is that the correct figure?

2. I heard that the average depth of rocks above the Precambrian layer is 2 miles worldwide. I see now that the depth on land is about twice the depth in the ocean, so perhaps that number just applies to continents. Is that true?. Again, this would be a huge challenge to believers in flood geology.

I'm not a good reference on that.
My opinion- far more sedimentary rock
than igneous.
As for oceans it would vary so much that an average
may not say much. Pacific is older than Atlantic,
so more sediment. More near continents.
There's probably a couple thousand feet in the Pacific.

It's really imo, not the quantities per se but the
structure of the geologic column that shows so
plainly it can't be done in a catastrophe any more than
a tornado can assemble a 747.

Everyone can understand the problem with the aircraft
but few have any idea about geology and don't
understand how complex it is.

I've tried to explain some idea about it, but it's like
trying to tell my old uncle ( late of the Red Guard)
about life in the USA, let alone the virtues of capitalism.
It's " against his religion" and that's that.

 

[Frank Robert]

Remember, we're dealing with spiritual wickedness in high places.

How many tries did it take the scientific community to reach 97% consensus?

Wickedness has little to do with science. I am sure there bad actors and wickedness in all professions even among creationists and clergy.

Depends on how you define "tries." If you count the pieces of evidence supporting evolution you are well into the billions. If you count the number of scientists since Darwin who have contributed to the ToE you are well into the 10s of thousands If you count the number of hypotheses contributing to the ToE, it is likely in the well over a million. Keep in mind that all sciences grow with new tools, new developments and with corrections.

A question for you. How man creation scientists are there and how many hypotheses have they contributed? Approximate numbers are welcome.

 

[AV1611VET]

A question for you. How man creation scientists are there and how many hypotheses have they contributed? Approximate numbers are welcome.

62

 

[Frank Robert]

62

Good guess

 

[AV1611VET]

Good guess

That's a link to Post 62 in another thread.

 

[Astrid]

Wickedness has little to do with science. I am sure there bad actors and wickedness in all professions even among creationists and clergy.

Depends on how you define "tries." If you count the pieces of evidence supporting evolution you are well into the billions. If you count the number of scientists since Darwin who have contributed to the ToE you are well into the 10s of thousands If you count the number of hypotheses contributing to the ToE, it is likely in the well over a million. Keep in mind that all sciences grow with new tools, new developments and with corrections.

A question for you. How man creation scientists are there and how many hypotheses have they contributed? Approximate numbers are welcome.

Better still, one fact contrary to ToE.

As if.

 

[Frank Robert]

That's a link to Post 62 in another thread.

If you deny there are creationist scientists I'll keep 62 which is likely near accurate as to the number of scientific hypothesis submitted by creationists which is higher that 0 implied in your answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you deny there are creationist scientists I'll keep 62 which is likely near accurate as to the number of scientific hypothesis submitted by creationists which is higher that 0 implied in your answer.

Fair enough.

Every arrow needs a target.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Simply compare what you see only three miles down, with the ORDER of the creation events during the creation week.

If that doesn't yell GOD DID IT, what will?

But Genesis has the order wrong.

First it lists plants and specifically mentions grass and fruit trees. But flowering plants did not come until the Cretaceous, and grasses did not come until the Cenozoic, both far up the column. So no, these were not first. See Timeline of plant evolution - Wikipedia

Next it lists birds, whales, and other marine animals. Genesis was right on marine animals being early, but wrong on birds and whales being early.

Next it lists land animals, which were long before whales and birds, so this was wrong.

Next it lists humans. OK, humans are a late comer.

I wouldn't say this order is impressive.

 

[AV1611VET]

But Genesis has the order wrong.

First it lists plants and specifically mentions grass and fruit trees. But flowering plants did not come until the Cretaceous, and grasses did not come until the Cenozoic, both far up the column. So no, these were not first. See Timeline of plant evolution - Wikipedia

Next it lists birds, whales, and other marine animals. Genesis was right on marine animals being early, but wrong on birds and whales being early.

Next it lists land animals, which were long before whales and birds, so this was wrong.

Next it lists humans. OK, humans are a late comer.

I wouldn't say this order is impressive.

Genesis has:

1. Earth before Sun
2. Light before Sun
3. Plants before marine organisms
4. Fruit bearing trees before fish
5. Birds before insects
6. Plants before Sun
7. Man before rain
8. Whales before land animals

 

[doubtingmerle]

Genesis has:

1. Earth before Sun
2. Light before Sun
3. Plants before marine organisms
4. Fruit bearing trees before fish
5. Birds before insects
6. Plants before Sun
7. Man before rain
8. Whales before land animals

I think everything in red is an error.

And if #2 said daylight on earth before the sun, which appears to be the teaching of Genesis, then #2 is also wrong.

0 for 8? That's not very good.

 

[Astrid]

I think everything in red is an error.

And if #2 said daylight on earth before the sun, which appears to be the teaching of Genesis, then #2 is also wrong.

0 for 8? That's not very good.

Any answer is as true as any other

 

[AV1611VET]

Any answer is as true as any other

If I was teaching creationism, and you took that attitude, you'd probably fail my class.

Especially if you answered it the way Merle did.

I'd fail you in a heartbeat.

One of the big reasons I'd be so harsh, is that I would make it plain from the first day of my class that science has absolutely no place in this classroom.

None whatsoever.

This class is about how the earth and universe came into existence within a six-day period, via a series of some twenty miracles.

That's all it is.

 

[inquiring mind]

I think everything in red is an error.

And if #2 said daylight on earth before the sun, which appears to be the teaching of Genesis, then #2 is also wrong.

0 for 8? That's not very good.

Any answer is as true as any other

Earth before the Sun and Plants before the Sun; but, not before God’s light. Perhaps God wanted us to know the process was His and not just a natural one. The other orders may have been for the same reason. That hasn’t been really clear for some though.

 

[driewerf]

It amazes me that college educated people can believe a comet hit the earth and gave us seven seas, but then go so far as put someone on IGNORE because they think God took some water off the earth and put it somewhere else.

It amazes me that you think that these repeated attempts at dodging, deflection, obfuscation etc somehow reflects on the position you want to defend. Do you expect me or any other reader to have moved one inch closer to christianity when that's the only thing you can do when confronted with even the slightest inquiry? For me that is a sign of weakness, not of strength. It suggests that christianity or creationism needs to be shielded from even the slightest closer look.

 

[Astrophile]

It amazes me that college educated people can believe a comet hit the earth and gave us seven seas, but then go so far as put someone on IGNORE because they think God took some water off the earth and put it somewhere else.

The deuterium/hydrogen (D/H) ratio of the Earth's oceans is different from that of comets, so that cometary impacts were probably not the source of the Earth's water. The D/H ratio of asteroids is nearer to the Earth's D/H ratio, so it is more plausible (although not certain) that the Earth's water came from the impacts of asteroids. (This is over-simplifying a complex problem). Whichever it was, there must have been many impacts over a long period of time, not a single cometary or asteroidal impact.
I have already explained that the D/H ratio of Neptune is different from that of the Earth's oceans, so the Earth cannot have been the source of Neptune's water (or vice versa).