In a message dated 5/25/02 3:57:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> You wrote in part:
> > The fundamental objection to apparent age, whether in its philosophical
> > religious guise, is theological - it makes God the creator of an
> > more pointedly, a hoax.
> In drawing attention to the 'water into wine' miracle, I believe Walt has
> refuted this charge. Indeed, it is clear that the outcome of many of the
> miracles involved an element of 'apparent age' - as, for example, the
> bread gathered up following the feeding of the 5000, the healed limbs and
> accompanying muscle tissue and tendons, the eyes of the once blind
> and so on.
> Were these miracles performed with deception in mind? Surely not
> (though we would
> have to admit that a pedantic analyst might be misled by them!). Would you
> not agree that, once one accepts the principle of miracle, then the
> of 'apparent age'
> surely follows?
> What then of the miracle of creation? God has provided an account of the
> unfolding of this event along with a timescale. Thus He can hardly be
> accused of
> a deliberate deception if current observation and deduction (based on
> assumptions) lead men to conclude otherwise. Surely it has then become a
> of _self-deception_ fuelled by unbelief on their part.
> You continue:
> > The apparent age idea cannot be refuted scientifically. Neither can
> > that any physical phenomenon we don't understand is brought about
> >by invisible
> > demons. But apparent age in a religious context is a counsel
> > of desperation and should be rejected by anyone who takes the doctrine
> > creation seriously.
> George, I have argued that 'apparent age' is a necessary outcome of certain
> types of miracle - which include the miracle of creation. It is
> therefore hardly
> a 'counsel of desperation' for those of my persuasion, but rather a truth
> which is clearly demonstrated in the Scriptures and one that is - and
> ever will be - a thorn in the flesh for the Christian evolutionist.
>From time to time I've been following what is in this thread. Although the
Bible may imply that the wine created miraculously from water, was created
with the appearance of age, this appearance of age had a specific function.
However, you can't use this as a scientific argument, as the wine is no
longer available to be analyzed.
In the universe there are many objects for which the appearance of age makes
no sense at all. For example white dwarfs are the burned out cores of stars
similar to the sun that have exhausted their nuclear fuel, and have gone
through the red giant phase, then thrown off their outer layers. Their
cooling times are well defined, and the ages of white dwarfs can be
calculated. The ages range from several tens of thousands of years for the
very youngest to billions of years for the oldest. The very youngest still
have the remnants of the thrown out layers, which are excited to glow as
As no white dwarfs are visible to the naked eye, they clearly serve no
function for signs and seasons. Why would God deceptively salt the universe
with white dwarfs which were created about 6000 years ago, according to YEC
chronology, but created with the appearance of being in many cases billions
of years old, but that appearance of age serves no function other than to
I've noticed that when a YEC is backed into a corner with no other options,
other than renouncing YECism, the appearance of age is invoked as a final
cop-out. The problem with the appearance of age argument is that it
contradicts the very basic Christian tenet of searching for the truth. If
you invoke the appearance of age, how do you know what is true and what is
not, how do you know that the age you determine for something is correct, at
least approximately, rather than just a mere illusion?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 26 2002 - 01:37:13 EDT