Re: [asa] Apparent age - why rely on science?

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>
Date: Mon Mar 30 2009 - 17:43:38 EDT

"most Christians consider bad science more credible than bad theology
(i.e. God-as-deceiver)."

I'd have to agree with that if "most" were changed to "many."

I wish I'd known of Gosse's book when I had those late night talks
with Duane Gish!


On 3/30/09, Jon Tandy <> wrote:
> I was thinking about this last week, after all this talk about "apparent
> age". Gosse's Omphalos in the 1800's gave appearance of age as an
> unapologetic doctrine, as I've heard it explained. Many YEC theories still
> advance apparent age without any apology, in order to explain things that
> are clearly not a young age according to known physical properties and
> processes. Yet most of their current arguments hinge on "scientific"
> explanations for why other things may truly be young, with only the
> appearance of age -- multiple tree rings per year, fossil layers, white
> holes, rapid radioactive decay. Anything in science that disagrees with
> young earth is anathema, while their admitted theological/scientific theory
> (young earth) is never allowed to be questioned.
> I wonder why they don't just go with Phillip Gosse, and admit that the
> appearance of age is intentional. There were tree rings on the first trees
> in the Garden, because that's how God created them. There was starlight in
> the sky because God placed the light in transit. In the same way, there
> were multiple layers of fossils in the earth and evidence of radioactive
> decay because God created a "fully formed" universe for us to inhabit. Why
> don't they just admit to it, and just smile smugly whenever science
> discovers another evidence of age, saying "Yup, that's another evidence that
> God created a fully formed universe and earth for us to live in." It would
> be much easier than having to twist science in knots to fit their desired
> outcome.
> I believe the answer is, they and their followers wouldn't find such an
> answer credible. It's one thing to admit to a fully formed tree in Eden
> with rings, but it's quite another when taken to include things like
> evidence of fossil progression from bacteria to man. What they ought to
> answer is why should their alternative science (with its conflicting and
> often evidence-lacking suggestions that are falsifiable, and have been
> falsified over and over) be considered any more "credible" scientifically
> than simply admitting the straightforward conclusion? I suppose it's
> because the unapologetic "appearance of age" is a theology, and most
> Christians consider bad science more credible than bad theology (i.e.
> God-as-deceiver).
> Jon Tandy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:06 PM
> To:
> Cc:;;
> Subject: Re: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning
> I was one at one time, until I discovered that I had been lied to. What
> forced me to first change was discovering that radioactive dating could not
> be off by much, and that the atomic bomb and other phenomena depended on the
> same science as dating. An error in dating meant that Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> couldn't have happened. I have read a good deal of the YEC literature and
> discovered that the "authorities" advance incompatible explanations for
> different phenomena at times, and at other times produce "explanations" that
> are impossible. For example, the guy who was an outstanding plant breeder
> (can't think of his name) said the reason there were more tree rings in the
> bristle cone pines than years back to the Flood was that some years produced
> more than one ring. Honest appraisal recognized that the pines are more
> likely to skip rings on bad years, fairly common under the extreme
> conditions of the area. The extension of the tree ring data now requires
> that there be two rings m!
> ost years. Tree ring data in Europe goes back about 12Ky. But can you point
> to anything in ICR or AiG or other YEC sites that recognizes this?
> George mentioned Oklo. Now comes RATE, placing almost all the energy from
> radioactive disintegration into a couple days at the time of creation and
> during the year of the Flood. This means that the temperature during the
> Flood would vaporize the most refractive materials on earth, but it is
> blandly stated that the temperature did not rise above 150 F. Should I
> respect those who peddle impossibilities as Biblical truth?
> Dave (ASA)
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 30 17:44:07 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 30 2009 - 17:44:07 EDT