RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam (from George on DNA)

From: gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun 26 2009 - 19:02:08 EDT

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

> Jon said:
> " Especially when they acknowledge that the evidence points to the
> "appearance" of age, but we must believe the earth is young because of the
> Bible. "
>
> Ken Ham for example, wouldn't say that. He says you think it appears old because you start out thinking it is old. The problem is with your presupposition. It doesn't look old or appear old to Ken Ham.
>
> In the same way, I don't think they would say the DNA appears to have been made by evolution. They would say there's something wrong with your presupposition to make it appear that way to you.
>
> Jon: " It's not really a straw man argument."
>
> If you can't name someone willing to seriously argue it, then it looks like a strawman. There may be a serious arguer for it- I'm asking, because I haven't seen it.
>
> ...Bernie
>

The appearance-of-age theory was published in 1857 in the book Omphalos by
Philip Gosse. I have heard it from flood geology advocates, especially
back in the 60s and 70s, but they were willing to admit that fossils were
remains of creatures that really existed, which is why they needed their
theory. Obviously, if they were completely comfortable with apparent age,
they wouldn't have needed to look for other explanations for anything they
didn't like. On page 231 of Ronald Numbers's expanded edition of The
Creationists he writes "Given Whitcomb and Morris's position on a
'full-grown' creation with the appearance of age at birth,....."

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 26 19:03:11 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 26 2009 - 19:03:11 EDT