Re: Response to Why YEC posting

From: george murphy (
Date: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 08:58:39 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?"

    "Todd S. Greene" wrote:

    > Hi, guys.
    > When you're talking about circular reasoning, please, let's keep in mind
    > that *by its very nature* the apparent age argument is the most circular
    > reasoning on the planet. It comes from creationists who say, "If the
    > evidence shows that the earth is young, then this is true science." (Of
    > course, "scientific creationism" has become, deservedly, extremely
    > noteworthy for its scientific deficiencies.) They also say, "If the
    > evidence shows that the earth is young, then the evidence is not real."
    > For example, even though with SN1987A astronomers observed the explosion
    > of a star that took place about 168,000 years ago, the apparent age
    > concept says that this explosion never actually occurred even though the
    > event is directly observed. Another example would be impact craters
    > (on the earth and the moon): "Apparent agers" would consider these to be
    > not the remains of impacts that actually happened, but merely
    > "landforms" that God created "in situ" when he created the earth and the
    > moon.
    > So when young earth creationists complain about circular reasoning, and
    > they turn around and use the apparent age argument, there's this
    > hypocrisy thing that stinks to high heaven.

            Agreed. I didn't emphasize this because I didn't want to appear to
    be falling back on the "So's your old man" argument.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 08:58:10 EDT