Spurgeon Preached Old Earth Creationism

[Astrid]

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

See post 207

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

Already addressed that in post #200

Actually there are many floating glaciers.
You stopped reading a little early.

When you quoted USGS as an authority did you
intend that as provisional, as in that it is only
authoritative when it says what you choose to
believe or reject before you even read it?

Also I wonder...
Is it a Christian value to do ones due diligence to
speak with informed authority, or is it OK to just
say things?

 

[Astrid]

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'.

There is no illusion of absolute certainty in
science. It differs from Christianity in that
regard where belief- by- faith irrespective of any
evidence, in certain absolutes is held to be
a highest virtue.

You have maybe half a point there, that
science cannot prove that physical laws have
remained consistent through time.
Cannot prove that LastThursdayism is not
The True religion.

So...? How does that invalidate what science
can do?

We can count tree rings in a single tree
going back 1000 plus years.

The width of the ring shows growing conditions.
One can look and see that the year 1303, say,
had excellent weather for that tree.

Or, one can say the rings are not annual
growth rings even though as with glaciers
one can observe a new one being added
every year, announce they are formed in
a completely different way, and that in 1303
physics, chemistry, and biology operated
in wholly different ways under different laws
than today. Or say it is only 1303 to anti-
Last Thursday scientist assume it was,
and that the God of Last Thursday faked it
up to look like annual rings.

One can do these things but it's not reasonable
or even, imo, sane.

 

[inquiring mind]

See post 207

Actually there are many floating glaciers.
You stopped reading a little early.

When you quoted USGS as an authority did you
intend that as provisional, as in that it is only
authoritative when it says what you choose to
believe or reject before you even read it?

Also I wonder...
Is it a Christian value to do ones due diligence to
speak with informed authority, or is it OK to just
say things?

When a portion of a glacier starts floating they are then called an ice shelf, iceberg, etc.

 

[Astrid]

When a portion of a glacier starts floating they are then called an ice shelf, iceberg, etc.

And so? It's the same body of ice.
Those are terms of convenience.
An iceberg is still made of, yes, glacial ice.

As the tide goes down the a part that becomes
grounded does not stop being shelf ice and
become a glacier again, then back to shelf ice.
Not in any sensible discussion.

Speaking of sensible, how is it you feel so
free to accept the USGS when it suits you
and reject what they say about the age of
glaciers when it does not suit you?

Is that intellectually honest?

 

[Ophiolite]

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?

Perhaps, but we are not dealing with speculated lengths of times, but lengths of time estimated through a variety of methods validated by sound logic and careful observation. If you think such estimates are equivalent to speculation I can recommend several good dictionaries.

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of sensible, how is it you feel so free to accept the USGS when it suits you and reject what they say about the age of glaciers when it does not suit you?

Is that intellectually honest?

I was wondering the same thing, when science gives cause-and-effect credit for such things as discovering gravity and radiation, but deny it in areas of the supernatural.

Merry Christmas!

 

[driewerf]

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'.

No. They don't hypothesize the past. They deduce the past based on observations of traces the past conditions left behind.
Big difference.

 

[inquiring mind]

And so? It's the same body of ice.
Those are terms of convenience.
An iceberg is still made of, yes, glacial ice.

As the tide goes down the a part that becomes
grounded does not stop being shelf ice and
become a glacier again, then back to shelf ice.
Not in any sensible discussion.

Speaking of sensible, how is it you feel so
free to accept the USGS when it suits you
and reject what they say about the age of
glaciers when it does not suit you?

Is that intellectually honest?

Because they say exactly what a glacier is, and include a couple of 'musts' to be one, which I'm sure you've found by now. But, when they talk about age, it's always in terms of could've been, maybe was, appears to be, etc. So...

 

[inquiring mind]

Perhaps, but we are not dealing with speculated lengths of times, but lengths of time estimated through a variety of methods validated by sound logic and careful observation. If you think such estimates are equivalent to speculation I can recommend several good dictionaries.

Again, they observe nothing under the conditions that actually existed in the past. They use the 'might have beens,' 'could have beens,' and 'appears to have beens'. If that's not speculation, give me a better word and I'll use it.

 

[inquiring mind]

No. They don't hypothesize the past. They deduce the past based on observations of traces the past conditions left behind.
Big difference.

They have no idea what really happened in the past. They interpret evidence, mostly subjectively I'd say, which itself could be compromised as it often is in the legal field.

 

[Astrid]

Because they say exactly what a glacier is, and include a couple of 'musts' to be one, which I'm sure you've found by now. But, when they talk about age, it's always in terms of could've been, maybe was, appears to be, etc. So...

Because they say exactly what a glacier is, and include a couple of 'musts' to be one, which I'm sure you've found by now. But, when they talk about age, it's always in terms of could've been, maybe was, appears to be, etc. So...

So you interpret such phrasing to indicate
such a high level of uncertainty as to throw
doubt on any possibility that the ice predates
any possible time for a flood?

Ive seen nothing in the literature to indicate
confidence intervals that would leave it
to "maybe' and 'might have been" to distinguish
between 500,000 and 5000, say.

I think you are misrepresenting the level of
uncertainty, which, while it may be honest at
this point, it would not stand up to further
scrutiny on your part.


How long ago do you think this " flood"
happened?

Could you describe evidence for it, or is
entirely a matter of faith for you?

 

[Ophiolite]

Again, they observe nothing under the conditions that actually existed in the past. They use the 'might have beens,' 'could have beens,' and 'appears to have beens'. If that's not speculation, give me a better word and I'll use it.

To believe that the relevant research is dominated by caveats at the cost of accuracy means one of three things:
1. You have not actually read relevant research papers.
2. You have read the relevant papers but have not understood them.
3. You are misrepresenting what they say.

 

[inquiring mind]

To believe that the relevant research is dominated by caveats at the cost of accuracy means one of three things:
1. You have not actually read relevant research papers.
2. You have read the relevant papers but have not understood them.
3. You are misrepresenting what they say.

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.

 

[Astrid]

They have no idea what really happened in the past. They interpret evidence, mostly subjectively I'd say, which itself could be compromised as it often is in the legal field.

"No idea" is obviously not true,
and as such is a dishonest claim.

The ad hom directed at the thousands
of researchers is even less honest.

You have no basis for it other than
your personal opinion that they all
betray the highest value in science,
which in intellectual integrity.*

It seems to me that as your entire
presentation here relies on clear
and evident fallacies, that even if you
were correct about your flood-an
event for which zero (0) evidence
exists- your argument is still entirely
invalid.

Please desist from insulting our
intelligence, and yours, with such
ill conceived argumentation.

* Intellectual honesty requires among
other things a commitment to objectivity,
including such as not allowing preconceived
Ideas or preference to influence.

Many Christians by contrast put faith
as their highest value, faith regardless of
evidence, despite all evidence.
It is a perfect breeding culture for the most
extreme intellectual dishonesty, as we
constantly see among YEC.

Which I find odd, there being such wide
and deep dishonesty among people who I
would assume that they'd figure honesty was
a moral imperative.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Someone who uses common sense as a defence of their views has either had no training in scientific methodology, or has forgotten it all, or has chosen to ignore it. Regardless which it is it means there is little point in contemplating their thoughts on scientifc matters. Sorry to have taken up your time. If you wish to resume the discussion using a practical approach, not the nonsense of "common sense" do send me a pm.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Again, they observe nothing under the conditions that actually existed in the past. They use the 'might have beens,' 'could have beens,' and 'appears to have beens'. If that's not speculation, give me a better word and I'll use it.

It's not speculation, it's honest statement of scientific acceptance. Scientific conclusions are always provisional, therefore it is never acceptable to state "this must have been" where there is no absolute evidence that such a thing is true. Honesty is an important facet of science. If it is equally important to creationism, why do you question its use?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

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?".

If the Earth is young, the flood could still have happened, if the Earth is old the Flood could still have happened. I don't see the logic in what your offering, in that the flood of Noah makes a big difference. Besides, and more importantly, my faith (the Christian faith) does not rest on the flood of Noah, but on the blood of Jesus.

 

[Astrid]

Again, they observe nothing under the conditions that actually existed in the past. They use the 'might have beens,' 'could have beens,' and 'appears to have beens'. If that's not speculation, give me a better word and I'll use it.

Making up ac" could have been" for which
there is zero evidence but that conveniently
allows for a predetermined narrative, for
which there is zero evidence, is not really an
honest argument.

If you think it is then you should accept as
valid an argument that in " biblical times"
the shepherds were given to eating the now-
extinct hallucinogenic gurgleberry, from which
all communications with "god" were imagined.

Why not? I'm not even trashing the shepherds
as dishonest as you do for scientists.

 

[Astrid]

It's not speculation, it's honest statement of scientific acceptance. Scientific conclusions are always provisional, therefore it is never acceptable to state "this must have been" where there is no absolute evidence that such a thing is true. Honesty is an important facet of science. If it is equally important to creationism, why do you question its use?

Awful big " if", as is sp blatantly obvious
that yec does not do honestly

 

[Astrid]

If the Earth is young, the flood could still have happened, if the Earth is old the Flood could still have happened. I don't see the logic in what your offering, in that the flood of Noah makes a big difference. Besides, and more importantly, my faith (the Christian faith) does not rest on the flood of Noah, but on the blood of Jesus.

Did you even read what I said?
Go back and look, again.

Your response has nothing to do with what
I said.