Spurgeon Preached Old Earth Creationism

[Astrophile]

Was Pluto being our ninth planet scientifically credible at one time?

Yes. At the time of its discovery, Pluto was thought to be about the same size as the Earth, so it would have fitted the description of a planet, and nothing was known about other objects orbiting beyond Neptune.

The discovery in 1978 of Pluto's satellite Charon showed that Pluto has only about 1/500 of the mass of the Earth (it is less massive even than the Moon). The discoveries from 1992 onwards of other trans-Neptunian objects showed that Pluto is only one (and not necessarily even the largest) of a vast number of bodies orbiting beyond Neptune, and that it is a different class of body from the well-established planets. If you regard Pluto, Eris, Haumea, etc. as planets, where do you draw the line between trans-Neptunian objects that are planets and TNOs that are not?

 

[Astrid]

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.

It's clear any explanation is as valid as any other

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

I'm just glad you weren't in charge of my school.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Thanks for your response.

I do find the mere magnitude of the fossil record to be quite unexpected from the flood geology perspective. If the earth had flooded--ignoring for the moment the miracles needed to create the water and make it vanish--I would expect massive amounts of sediment to wash off the continents and end up on the continental shelves in the initial "40 days and 40 nights" of rain. The mountains and highlands would be stripped bare.

When the rain stopped, I think creationists are correct that there would then be huge ocean currents across the globe. This would keep a significant amount of debris in the water, which would eventually settle out. I would expect to see inches of sediment ending up in the mountains, perhaps 50 feet in the plains, and massive burial grounds in the lowlands and continental shelves of perhaps several hundred feet.

And then, of course, creationists postulate a quick solidification of that debris to become today's sedimentary rocks, once again turning to "and then a miracle happened".

This is not what we see. I read that the Precambrian rocks are 3 miles deep in North Dakota, and up to 4 miles deep in Michigan. By any conceivable flood hypothesis, this is not expected.

I had also heard there was an average depth of 2 miles, but I don't remember where that came from, and can not find verification. I think it would be better to say that the Precambrian rocks are usually buried by thousands of feet of rock across the continents. And I find that to be totally unexpected from a creationist model.

 

[Astrid]

Thanks for your response.

I do find the mere magnitude of the fossil record to be quite unexpected from the flood geology perspective. If the earth had flooded--ignoring for the moment the miracles needed to create the water and make it vanish--I would expect massive amounts of sediment to wash off the continents and end up on the continental shelves in the initial "40 days and 40 nights" of rain. The mountains and highlands would be stripped bare.

When the rain stopped, I think creationists are correct that there would then be huge ocean currents across the globe. This would keep a significant amount of debris in the water, which would eventually settle out. I would expect to see inches of sediment ending up in the mountains, perhaps 50 feet in the plains, and massive burial grounds in the lowlands and continental shelves of perhaps several hundred feet.

And then, of course, creationists postulate a quick solidification of that debris to become today's sedimentary rocks, once again turning to "and then a miracle happened".

This is not what we see. I read that the Precambrian rocks are 3 miles deep in North Dakota, and up to 4 miles deep in Michigan. By any conceivable flood hypothesis, this is not expected.

I had also heard there was an average depth of 2 miles, but I don't remember where that came from, and can not find verification. I think it would be better to say that the Precambrian rocks are usually buried by thousands of feet of rock across the continents. And I find that to be totally unexpected from a creationist model.

Whatever exactly the model is, some
go whole hog "hydroplate theory".

The thing of even surface sediments
suddenly turning to stone is not for
a mind capable of thought.
'Sea shells on Everest" is particularly
rich.
Clams dug from their beds and
carried miles up, and then mud
plus class left like chocolate on
an Ice cream cone, whereupon it
turns to a stone layer running through
the "ice cream" one side to the other.
Subtle sense of humor, that
kind of god.

 

[AV1611VET]

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).

I never said it was.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.

Thank you for an honest answer.

 

[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 you yourself admit that the order of the fossils down there do not match the order of Genesis 1. So if the fossil record is a deliberate rearrangement of the junk after the flood, why did God go to all that work to arrange the fossils in a sequence consistent with evolution, when he could have put them in the order listed in Genesis 1?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I've said this enough that you should remember; the only thing I'm committed to is 'we do not know' how God did things... for me anyway, only that He did. As to the 'hows', it's all speculation.

Sorry, but it is not simply speculation. The evidence is out there if you care to look.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you yourself admit that the order of the fossils down there do not match the order of Genesis 1. So if the fossil record is a deliberate rearrangement of the junk after the flood, why did God go to all that work to arrange the fossils in a sequence consistent with evolution, when he could have put them in the order listed in Genesis 1?

Then unbelievers would claim there was no Flood -- like they do now.

But in this case, they would be asking us to explain how, if the earth belched up its fossils everywhere during a global flood, why they find the fossils in the exact order as if there was no flood.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Then unbelievers would claim there was no Flood -- like they do now.

But in this case, they would be asking us to explain how, if the earth belched up its fossils everywhere during a global flood, why they find the fossils in the exact order as if there was no flood.

Huh? Your God could have arranged the fossils after the flood to either a) match the order of Gen 1; or b) be consistent with evolution; or c) be consistent with what a flood would do. You say he chose b because otherwise unbelievers would claim there was no flood?

Huh?

Sir, I used to believe in Noah's flood, but I turned from it because the rock layers do not match what we expect from a flood. They were consistent with an old earth. If God wanted me to believe in a global flood, then deliberately arranging them to not look like a global flood doesn't seem like a very good plan to me.

 

[Frank Robert]

But you yourself admit that the order of the fossils down there do not match the order of Genesis 1. So if the fossil record is a deliberate rearrangement of the junk after the flood, why did God go to all that work to arrange the fossils in a sequence consistent with evolution, when he could have put them in the order listed in Genesis 1?

Didn't you learn in elementary school that belief trumps logic?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then unbelievers would claim there was no Flood -- like they do now.

But in this case, they would be asking us to explain how, if the earth belched up its fossils everywhere during a global flood, why they find the fossils in the exact order as if there was no flood.

Here's what I'd like to see you understand, AV: For you to even begin to have a chance to change my mind about not just whether or not the earth is young or old, whether a Great Flood took place or not, you'd have to know that you're bashing your fists against all the books---all the knowledge of ALL kinds--- that I've ever read. And I've read quite a bit.

On a practical scale, the only way you're going to even have a chance to change my perspective is to get a copy of the book, The Bible, Rocks and Time, by Davis A. Young & Ralph F. Stearley [among other books], and read it with me and carefully and minutely refute what these Christian Geologists say page by page.

But all this blustering back and forth on a public forum barely scratches the surface on these issues, and that's part of the problem with these kinds of discussions.

In fact, where Creationism VS. the TOE is concerned, I don't even know why we all bother to post on this forum, or any forum, for that matter since there's hundreds of details that always remain unidentified, unaddressed or ignored, or they're just too numerous to deal with here.

 

[driewerf]

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.

It is always funny to see a layman tell what scientists in a certain field of science do and don’t know. This of course without any reference to the actual research, means of investigation, reasoning applied etc. Just stating “knowing these conditions is impossible” will do. Anyone who has ever read a scientific paper – on any subject, of any science – knows that a considerable part of that paper describes the used methodology. The validity of the conclusion depends very heavily on the applied equipment, measurements and analysis. No such thing for Inquiring Mind.
Research is superfluous. Gathering and analysis of data is a waste of time. Just his common sense trumps all that.
Anyone who has ever read a scientific paper- on any subject, of any science - knows that here is always an impressive list of references, or previous research. Because no scientist works in a vacuum, but build upon what was already previously published.
No such thing for Inquiring Mind. He doesn’t need to learn what others have found. He knows more and better than all scientists together anyways.

 

[Astrid]

It is always funny to see a layman tell what scientists in a certain field of science do and don’t know. This of course without any reference to the actual research, means of investigation, reasoning applied etc. Just stating “knowing these conditions is impossible” will do. Anyone who has ever read a scientific paper – on any subject, of any science – knows that a considerable part of that paper describes the used methodology. The validity of the conclusion depends very heavily on the applied equipment, measurements and analysis. No such thing for Inquiring Mind.
Research is superfluous. Gathering and analysis of data is a waste of time. Just his common sense trumps all that.
Anyone who has ever read a scientific paper- on any subject, of any science - knows that here is always an impressive list of references, or previous research. Because no scientist works in a vacuum, but build upon what was already previously published.
No such thing for Inquiring Mind. He doesn’t need to learn what others have found. He knows more and better than all scientists together anyways.

Notice the use of the word "all".
Of course nobody knows all the
conditions of millions of years ago.

Our good natured friend should find it
quite impossible to know all the conditions
of the items arranged abreakfast table!

No more than could the learned sages of
Zanzibar.

Since not all can be known, nothing can be
known.

Misapplication of "common sense" leads here
to great foolishness.

Of course this was not thought of by our
earnestly misquided friend, who who like
all who grasp at straws is too anxious to
be rescued to inquire closely of the support
offered.

 

[Diamond72]

Spurgeon explicitly taught that the earth is many million of years old. For example, in his sermon, “The Power of the Holy Spirit” that he preached on June 17, 1855,

James Hutton (1726–1797) is known as the founder of modern geology. Gradualism—theory proposed by James Hutton which said that major geological change could be explained by the accumulation of small changes caused by continuous processes which continue to operate to this day.