[big snip]
> If the
> earth were perfectly antiquated then it would be impossible to tell the
> difference between (i) a world which actually went through long
> processes of aging, and (ii) a world which was perfectly antiquated.
> If the two are impossible of differentiation, common sense prefers (i)
> over (ii). If we conduct our science and geology on the grounds of a
> world having gone through such a process, it would be rather absurd
> to affirm that it had not really gone through such a process Such a
> scheme as Gosse propounds, clever as it is, is a tacit admission of
> the correctness of geology. Better sense will state that the ideal time
> is
> the real time. If this is done Gosse offers us no basis of the
> reconciliation of geology and Genesis and, therefore, we must look
> elsewhere." B Ramm
>
John-
This has been precisely my problem with Ideal Time, and various attempts
to "partially" use it in geochronlogical explanations. I have asked
listers elsewhere just what the difference is between perfect thorough
ideal time and identical real time. I never got a response. This is
the point I think ideal time theorists must deal with and find most
difficult.
Thanks for your Ramm and Gosse references. Ramm's "The C View of Sci
and Scrip" was a college text we used in the early 70's. My copy has
lots of dust. Many of his thoughts do not.
-- Brian W. Neuschwander