Spurgeon Preached Old Earth Creationism

[driewerf]

Again, it is your interpretation of the evidence that you explain.

No, it is not. I was pointing out the difference between what doubtingmerle wrote in post #39 and what you erroneously put in his mouth in post #43.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, it is not. I was pointing out the difference between what doubtingmerle wrote in post #39 and what you erroneously put in his mouth in post #43.

I don't have a clue what you think you're saying.

 

[Estrid]

And, what you suggest is truly skeptical thinking, which fails to recognize the power of God.

I observed that it's hardly thinking to ignore
and refuse to consider the enormous body
of evidence showing there was no flood.

Or ftm, to assume with vast arrogane
the power of infallible Bible reading and
infallible religious belief.

Skepticism is useful. Like in avoiding scams.
It's actually quite good thinking not to ' accept"
as real something for which there is zero (0)
evidence.

Scammers always salt their narrative with
some nuggets of truth, of demonstrable fact.

You can't show where you've that much.
So I dont think you've a thing to show except
how not to think.

 

[inquiring mind]

I observed that it's hardly thinking to ignore
and refuse to consider the enormous body
of evidence showing there was no flood.

Or ftm, to assume with vast arrogane
the power of infallible Bible reading and
infallible religious belief.

Skepticism is useful. Like in avoiding scams.
It's actually quite good thinking not to ' accept"
as real something for which there is zero (0)
evidence.

Scammers always salt their narrative with
some nuggets of truth, of demonstrable fact.

You can't show where you've that much.
So I dont think you've a thing to show except
how not to think.

I do not automatically discount scientific knowledge that is based on what is observed and studied. For me, flags go up when it is projected back prior to the point it has been observed and then assumed it has always been so. The flags turn red when what is only an interpretation differs from the Bible. Yes, it’s as simple as that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I do not automatically discount scientific knowledge that is based on what is observed and studied. For me, flags go up when it is projected back prior to the point it has been observed and then assumed it has always been so. The flags turn red when what is only an interpretation differs from the Bible. Yes, it’s as simple as that.

Could you specify what you mean by "projected back prior to the point it has been observed"?

 

[Estrid]

I do not automatically discount scientific knowledge that is based on what is observed and studied. For me, flags go up when it is projected back prior to the point it has been observed and then assumed it has always been so. The flags turn red when what is only an interpretation differs from the Bible. Yes, it’s as simple as that.

Of course thats simple.

Thinking isnt for everyone.
It's hard.
So is study.

 

[AV1611VET]

I observed that it's hardly thinking to ignore and refuse to consider the enormous body of evidence showing there was no flood.

Speaking of bodies, when God took one of Adams ribs and ...

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

... did He leave behind a bloody mess, including a scar on Adam's side?

Or did He clean His mess up so thoroughly, Eve wouldn't even know it happened, had she not been told?

My Eve Challenge

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

www.christianforums.com

 

[AV1611VET]

Thinking isnt for everyone.

And I have over 200 challenge threads that demonstrate that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

All I see in those graphs and stuff are lines, goofy terms, and other things.

Let's see a footprint on the wall of a well hole some three miles down.

We are actually making progress here..

You had been arguing that there are interpretations of the data that are consistent with your view of a young earth. But now we don't find you telling us that you will simply be able to explain away the MIchigan Basin as a big dump pile that God used for cleanup after the flood. No, you switch to arguing that the claimed evidence does not actually exist. You see the graphs, and you suggest that they are a lie, that somebody just made this up.

With all due respect, I was once where you now are. I was once a creationist. One day I found myself in a major library surrounded by scientific journals. Looking at one paper, it was easy to suggest that this one paper was based on lies to prove evolution. But looking at the vast amount of information that was in that library supporting an old earth and evolution I was speechless. It simply was not possible to say all of this was lies. See My Epiphany

I have given you my source on the fossil record in North Dakota-- The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota. It was written by Glenn Morton, a long-time geologist working in the oil industry. (And if it helps you, he is a Christian.) He describes the fossil record in North Dakota in detail and why it could not have been created in a global flood. And he give multiple references to the primary literature to validate every point. If you want to check it out, check out his sources.

 

[lismore]

Spurgeon explicitly taught that the earth is many million of years old.

Relying on the opinions of celebrity preachers is not a new phenomenon in the church then. Kind Regards

 

[inquiring mind]

Could you specify what you mean by "projected back prior to the point it has been observed"?

Basing what may have taken place on what is taking place today, or on what interpretation of evidence today leads you to believe happened then.

 

[doubtingmerle]

(accidental post deleted)

 

[AV1611VET]

You had been arguing that there are interpretations of the data that are consistent with your view of a young earth.

I'm not a young earth creationist.

It was written by Glenn Morton, a long-time geologist working in the oil industry.

Mr. Morton and I duked it out on this site some time ago.

He ended up calling me a Last Thursday or Omphalos -- (if I remember correctly) -- and that was the end of it.

I consider myself an embedded ager.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Reason does not always lead to a loss of faith for everyone, one or the other, as might be gathered from a sub-title (‘Faith or Reason’) in your story. If you are truly open, why not ‘Faith and Reason’?

You are going to read a generic subtitle, guess from that what the text is arguing, and then write an evaluation of what you assume the other person is saying?

Your guess was wrong. If you want to write about my subsection on faith and reason (here) please read it before you comment on what it says.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But to the point here, since no one was there to witness it, the cookie-cutter academic teaching that rock layers were deposited slowly over millions of years is only speculative, and more importantly for evolutionists, necessary for TOE. Whereas, with rapid sedimentary deposits, like during the Genesis Flood, the order of fossilized remains found in different rock layers is not necessarily the slow, gradual order in which they evolved, but could be the order in which remains were buried and fossilized, as in a catastrophic flood.

There is no way that a global flood can account for the fossil record. In the link I repeated several times here, Glenn Morton describes in detail how the geologic record could not have been formed in a global flood.

 

[Estrid]

Basing what may have taken place on what is taking place today, or on what interpretation of evidence today leads you to believe happened then.

So fossil footprints were not made by feet.
Growth rings in petrified wood are not really
growth rings.
The pattern in a cross section of sand
buried a hundred million years matches that of
today's sand dunes but was formed by different,
totally unknown processes. Fossil raindrop
craters and ripple marks are not what they look
like thiugh exactly resembling those of today.

Old time volcanoes belched limestone
and sand, not lava.

Or what? You claim some difference, give an
example and explain it.

 

[Estrid]

I do not automatically discount scientific knowledge that is based on what is observed and studied. For me, flags go up when it is projected back prior to the point it has been observed and then assumed it has always been so. The flags turn red when what is only an interpretation differs from the Bible. Yes, it’s as simple as that.

No red flag goes up when you
realize a global flood when float
the ice off of Antarctica and Greenland?

It's still there. Proves there was no flood.
Simple.

 

[inquiring mind]

So fossil footprints were not made by feet.
Growth rings in petrified wood are not really
growth rings.
The pattern in a cross section of sand
buried a hundred million years matches that of
today's sand dunes but was formed by different,
totally unknown processes. Fossil raindrop
craters and ripple marks are not what they look
like thiugh exactly resembling those of today.

Old time volcanoes belched limestone
and sand, not lava.

Or what? You claim some difference, give an
example and explain it.

You haven’t listened to anything I’ve said. You keep going back to the cookie-cutter teaching that all the things you mention had to happen gradually over very lengthy periods of time, layer after layer, and present an order of evolution. I have told you the difference is it was done rapidly, the Genesis Flood, and the layers reflect only the order in which the remains were buried by catastrophic fountain of the deep eruptions, great land mass break-ups, deluge, and wave after wave with run-off. Animals could have been buried in their tracks; petrified trees and animal fossils in the same layer may not have even lived at the same time. Volcano eruptions probably encircled the globe, and you think you know what happened.

 

[inquiring mind]

No red flag goes up when you
realize a global flood when float
the ice off of Antarctica and Greenland?

It's still there. Proves there was no flood.
Simple.

Proves that ice is pretty stable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Basing what may have taken place on what is taking place today, or on what interpretation of evidence today leads you to believe happened then.

This provides no additional information.