Spurgeon Preached Old Earth Creationism

[ByTheSpirit]

i dont understand the need to squabble over something like this. YEC or OEC what difference does it make? No one can provide a scripture that specifically says one or the other, if God felt it to be a non-issue then perhaps we should too.

 

[driewerf]

There were no polar ice caps prior to the Flood.

No Arctic because the earth was a tropical paradise.

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

No Antarctica because the earth was one giant landmass at the time: Pangaea & Panthalassa.

Genesis 10:25a And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;

Peleg was Noah's great-great-great grandson.

Of course there is no evidence for all this. Just unsupported statements.

 

[driewerf]

Maybe eruptions happened in intervals over the year and came down in freezing conditions.

Maybe. Or maybe not.
Maybe god played with gravity and we got a gravitational field of oscillating strength.
Or maybe god played with water and water got heavier and lighter as it suited god.
Or maybe god smoked a cigarette in between the flood and we see the ashes.

Everything goes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course there is no evidence for all this. Just unsupported statements.

Correct.

No polar ice caps were replaced with polar ice caps.

Just like the earth, when it was created.

One minute, no Earth.

The next minute, Earth.

 

[driewerf]

Correct.

No polar ice caps were replaced with polar ice caps.

Again, where is the evidence for that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, where is the evidence for that?

Where is the evidence for what? the ice caps? or the absence of them, before they showed up?

There's a table one minute.

The next minute, there's a table with a glass of water on it.

Question (which doesn't make sense): Where is the evidence for that?

 

[Astrid]

Also from the USGS site:

How old is glacier ice?​

The age of the oldest glacier ice in Antarctica may approach 1,000,000 years old The age of the oldest glacier ice in Greenland is more than 100,000 years old The age of the oldest Alaskan glacier ice ever recovered (from a basin between Mt. Bona and Mt. Churchill) is about 30,000 years old. Glacier flow moves newly formed ice through the entire length of a typical Alaskan valley glacier in 100...

I'm thinking...

Glad to hear it.

Let us know how it goes!

 

[Astrid]

i dont understand the need to squabble over something like this. YEC or OEC what difference does it make? No one can provide a scripture that specifically says one or the other, if God felt it to be a non-issue then perhaps we should too.

Little difference if they are both wrong.

For Christians, though, it seems to me that
the reality " the flood" is pretty important.

In America its a felony to drown a horse, or
a dog, let alone millions of people, a crime
beyond calculation.
Pretty heavy accusation against the god one
claims to worship.
Theres zero evidence of it, disproof after
disproof of it.
And you say, " what difference does it make?".

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just when you guys have me thinking I'm dumb... Is glacier ice a type of rock? | U.S. Geological Survey

As Letterman would ask-- Will it float?

(answer: yes it will.)

Try going down that page to the 3rd or so linked article...

How old is glacier ice? | U.S. Geological Survey

 

[inquiring mind]

As Letterman would ask-- Will it float?

(answer: yes it will.)

Glacier ice is land ice. The only floating it would do is in a Genesis class Flood… had they been here then.

Try going down that page to the 3rd or so linked article...

How old is glacier ice? | U.S. Geological Survey

Already addressed that in post #200

 

[Hans Blaster]

Glacier ice is land ice. The only floating it would do is in a Genesis class Flood… had they been here then.

Isn't that why we're talking about it? The survival of ice sheets during a Noachian deluge?

 

[inquiring mind]

Isn't that why we're talking about it? The survival of ice sheets during a Noachian deluge?

Yes, Estrid indicated they would have floated away had there been a flood. I began questioning Estrid as to 'what glacier ice is', 'was glacier ice a kind of rock', etc.? But then I dropped the questioning altogether and agreed with AV's comment that they weren't there prior to the flood anyway. People got fixated on the ridiculous question of 'whether ice floats' for some reason and the whole conversation turned into a word scramble. If we're not careful it may go back there again.

 

[Bradskii]

But then I dropped the questioning altogether and agreed with AV's comment that they weren't there prior to the flood anyway.

Then it might be a good idea not to post links that you want us to trust that tell you how old they actually are.

'The age of the oldest glacier ice in Antarctica may approach 1,000,000 years old'.

I might mention that this is a problem that creationists always have had and will always have. They cannot link to any scientific site to confirm a point that they are trying to argue because somewhere in that link, or somewhere in another link by the same author will be a refutation of the beliefs they are trying to support. And this is a case in point.

The only option is some seriously nonsensical cherry picking in suggesting that hey, you can believe this bit, but not that bit.

 

[inquiring mind]

Then it might be a good idea not to post links that you want us to trust that tell you how old they actually are.

'The age of the oldest glacier ice in Antarctica may approach 1,000,000 years old'.

I might mention that this is a problem that creationists always have had and will always have. They cannot link to any scientific site to confirm a point that they are trying to argue because somewhere in that link, or somewhere in another link by the same author will be a refutation of the beliefs they are trying to support. And this is a case in point.

The only option is some seriously nonsensical cherry picking in suggesting that hey, you can believe this bit, but not that bit.

Come to think of it, I believe you may have been the one who started the ice-floating nonsense. You seem to have a problem understanding my posts, as is evidenced here. The intent of the post you just quoted was to show the uncertainty of the USGS comments:
'The age of the oldest glacier ice in Antarctica may approach 1,000,000 years old'. I even highlighted the operative words to indicate my point.

 

[Bradskii]

Come to think of it, I believe you may have been the one who started the ice-floating nonsense. You seem to have a problem understanding my posts, as is evidenced here. The intent of the post you just quoted was to show the uncertainty of the USGS comments:
'The age of the oldest glacier ice in Antarctica may approach 1,000,000 years old'. I even highlighted the operative words to indicate my point.

Gee, maybe a million years v a few thousand. Plus from the first couple of lines:

• The age of the oldest glacier ice in Greenland is more than 100,000 years old
• The age of the oldest Alaskan glacier ice ever recovered (from a basin between Mt. Bona and Mt. Churchill) is about 30,000 years old.

Plus:

'Parts of the Antarctic Continent have had continuous glacier cover for perhaps as long as 20 million years. '

That's well over 3,300 times the length of time creationists think the planet has been in existence. Are you honestly going to suggest that they could be that far out? It's as if someone suggested that the distance between NY and LA was 'perhaps as long as 2,800 miles' and you claimed it was less than one mile. Let's be serious here...

Like I said, you're never going to be able to quote any scientific facts from any reputable source that doesn't, in some way, reject your claims completely.

So, should we trust this link as you wanted us to do or should we now ignore it?

 

[inquiring mind]

Gee, maybe a million years v a few thousand. Plus from the first couple of lines:

• The age of the oldest glacier ice in Greenland is more than 100,000 years old
• The age of the oldest Alaskan glacier ice ever recovered (from a basin between Mt. Bona and Mt. Churchill) is about 30,000 years old.

Plus:

'Parts of the Antarctic Continent have had continuous glacier cover for perhaps as long as 20 million years. '

That's well over 3,300 times the length of time creationists think the planet has been in existence. Are you honestly going to suggest that they could be that far out? It's as if someone suggested that the distance between NY and LA was 'perhaps as long as 2,800 miles' and you claimed it was less than one mile. Let's be serious here...

Like I said, you're never going to be able to quote any scientific facts from any reputable source that doesn't, in some way, reject your claims completely.

So, should we trust this link as you wanted us to do or should we now ignore it?

Yes, but as I pointed out in a previous post they like those 'mays', 'is more thans', and 'is abouts'.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, but as I pointed out in a previous post they like those 'mays', 'is more thans', and 'is abouts'.

The distance from NY to LA 'is about' 2,830 miles. It's 'more than' 2,800. It 'may be' just over 2,800. And this information is from experts in distance. They have equipment and methods for measuring such distances.

What would you say to someone who linked to the web page that gave the info, implied that we should trust it and then said that they thought the distance was actually less than a mile? Because hey, look at those 'mays', 'is more thans', and 'is abouts'. Would you treat his views with any credibility whatsoever?

No. Me neither.

 

[inquiring mind]

The distance from NY to LA 'is about' 2,830 miles. It's 'more than' 2,800. It 'may be' just over 2,800. And this information is from experts in distance. They have equipment and methods for measuring such distances.

What would you say to someone who linked to the web page that gave the info, implied that we should trust it and then said that they thought the distance was actually less than a mile? Because hey, look at those 'mays', 'is more thans', and 'is abouts'. Would you treat his views with any credibility whatsoever?

No. Me neither.

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?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, Estrid indicated they would have floated away had there been a flood. I began questioning Estrid as to 'what glacier ice is', 'was glacier ice a kind of rock', etc.? But then I dropped the questioning altogether and agreed with AV's comment that they weren't there prior to the flood anyway. People got fixated on the ridiculous question of 'whether ice floats' for some reason and the whole conversation turned into a word scramble. If we're not careful it may go back there again.

Again, the problem is that the icecaps are clearly older than the flood. We can count 50,000 clear annual layers in the ice cores. Beyond that, there are a lot of additional layers, but it is sometimes hard to count. However, there are other reliable means of detecting the age that bring us up over one million years.

The 50,000 countable layers are enough to refute your flood story. The years beyond that are just icing on the cake.

And no, there were not multiple layers per year. I provided you with a link that summarized the evidence that the layers are indeed annual. You have simply ignored it.

 

[inquiring mind]

Again, the problem is that the icecaps are clearly older than the flood. We can count 50,000 clear annual layers in the ice cores. Beyond that, there are a lot of additional layers, but it is sometimes hard to count. However, there are other reliable means of detecting the age that bring us up over one million years.

The 50,000 countable layers are enough to refute your flood story. The years beyond that are just icing on the cake.

And no, there were not multiple layers per year. I provided you with a link that summarized the evidence that the layers are indeed annual. You have simply ignored it.

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'.