"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
> 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