Re: apparent age

Steven Fawl (
Tue, 2 Apr 96 16:21:18 -0800

The typical argument that you might get in favor of apparent age goes
something like this;

If you had been present on the earth just a few moments after the creation
of Adam you would have assumed that Adam had been alive for several years.
Thus God created Adam with *apparent age*. Now if it is possible for God to
create Adam with apparent age then what stops him from creating the earth
with apparent age?

The problem with the argument is that makes an assumption that is not
proved, specifically, that there is a direct relationship between a rock
(the earth) and Adam, and if God gave an apparent age to one, then he could
give apparent age to the other. This assumption falls apart in detail.

The problem is that it is necessary to give Adam apparent age in order for
him to survive. A zygote could not survive, neither could a newborn. Adam
could have been created with an apparent age of 7 or 8 and perhaps have been
able to fend for himself and survive. Whatever the age you choose for the
minimum for Adam it is clear that he had to be created with some apparent
age just to survive.

But a rock has no such restriction. A rock does not *survive*. An new rock
does exactly the same thing as an old rock, so there is no reason to give a
rock an apparent age, except perhaps to either purposely deceive or to test
ones faith. For this specific case, I reject both of these possibilities for
God. God does not deceive and I do not believe that he can imply a history
for a rock that did not actually occur (see previous starlight post). If I
am right then there is no relationship between the apparent age given to
Adam (required for survival) and the supposed apparent age given to a rock.
For one it is required, for the other it is not.

I therefore believe that the argument of apparent age is flawed by it's
premise because it assumes a link between the apparent age of Adam and the
age of a rock, which I think I have shown to be a false comparison.