I'd want to not see cooling. Crystallizing from a melt will produce
patterns in the size, chemistry, relationships to other rocks, etc. that
are not necessary for the instantaneous creation of granite. I'd expect
the sandstone not to have depositional sedimentary structures or fossils.
>I contend that there is no difference between apparent history and apparent
>process, and this is an artificial distinction (especially since I am in
>the habit of using them interchangeably!).
I was thinking of apparent process as equivalent to apparent age, but I can
see using it to refer to apparent history. Are you recognizing a
difference between apparent age and apparent process or history?
>> It's not how I think things should be done, but how I think things
>>were done that is the problem here. Jesus is the same yesterday, today,
>>and forever, so it seems like a good assumption that He has run the
>>universe similarly in the past as in the present. If the physical
>>condition of the earth is not a meaningful source of information about its
>>past, why do you try to find geological evidence compatible with your
>>views? We agree that creation should be comprehensible and in accord with
>>Scripture.
>
>I think Leonard Brand's view of an interventionist God is a good one. His
>book: "Faith, Reason, and Earth History : A Paradigm of Earth and
>Biological Origins by Intelligent Design", (available through Amazon or
>from the publisher, Andrews University Press) exposits a view of God I like
>a lot.
I haven't read that one; I'm mainly going by Creation Hypothesis. I don't
see any Scriptural requirement for (or against) God intervening [i.e.,
doing something "miraculously" rather than "naturally"] outside of human
history, and I don't see proven gaps in the physical record. Young-earth
chronologies are not long enough for God to have created the universe and
life in a uniformitarian manner.
>
>> Although I can see the possibility of justifying a young-earth view
>>from Scripture (in contrast to the issue of evolution, which seems
>>unmentioned), it also seems possible to interpret these passages
>>figuratively. ["Not literal" is often used as a euphemism for "not true,
>>but you might realize I'm attacking the Bible if I came out and said it".
>>I'm referring to intentional use of metaphor in the original, rather than
>>my ability to ignore the verses.] As I see two possible interpretations of
>>the Scripture and one of creation, I favor compatibility.
>
>I acknowledge your position as one perspective one can hold. I think it is
>an attempt to accommodate scripture to science, and I have taken a
>different road.
Given the crucial role of history in Christianity, I think it is scriptural
to expect extrabiblical and biblical evidence to agree. Extrabiblical
evidence may resolve ambiguity in the biblical evidence, though the
biblical evidence is more important.
David C.