"This discussion on the appearance of age in a new or miraculous
creation, IMO, hinges around those indications of age which are
necessary and perfect for the structure of that creation. However it
is those indications of age which are unnecessary and imperfect which
are most convincing and would appear to "Make God a Liar". For
example:>>
OK. My contention is that we, being fallible humans, are in no position
to "know God's mind or purpose" and therefore in a tenuous position to
look at a recent creation and designate something as either "unnecessary"
or "imperfect."
You go on to say:
"a. At Cana.
I would predict that the wine created in Christ's first recorded
miracle would be perfect and probably contain evidence of those factors
which are necessary for making wine (evidence of the grapes and the
fermenting process). I would not predict that Christ's miraculous wine
would contain unnecessary contamination from the wine making process
(such as insect fragments, pesticide residue, soil, and fragments of
DNA (skin, hair) from those who were involved in that business). If we
could identify the vineyard and the wine maker from contamination found
in that wine at Cana then I would have some justification accusing the
creator (Christ) of deliberate deception."
1. How do you know the "contamination" is not necessary?
2. How do you know "how" HE did it? Maybe he "duplicated" wine from a the
best nearby winepress? I guess I can't agree with the "deception"
conclusion here. I there another possibility?
You go on to say:
"b. At the 5,000 man feast.
I wouldn't expect to be able to identify the mill and millstone used to
grind the grain from fragments of stone found in the bread. "
Same reasoning. Suppose you did. Would you REALLY conclude the "liar"
hypothesis? Is there NO other possibliity?
And finally, you say:
"c. On day #8 of a fiat creation.
I wouldn't expect to find unnecessary embellishment and imperfection.
As Brian Harper pointed out, I wouldn't expect to find scars or
evidence of heart disease in Adam. In addition, I wouldn't expect
fossils in the rocks which show evidence of living creatures with
remains of other creatures in their stomach. And I wouldn't expect
that igneous rocks would contain ratios of parent radioactive elements
and daughter decay products that indicate an "apparent age" of 1,040
+/- 13 m.y. for the Pikes Peak Granite here in Colorado when it is in
fact less than 8 days old."
Scars and heart disease -- I agree.
The argument for an old earth is not the issue.
I think the issue (for me) is coming down to the choice between a PC
(progressive creation) and TE (theistic evolution) position. When I began
this thread, I didn't know where it was leading me.
You also wrote:
"If I ordered a brand new car from the Ford factory, I think that I have
a good case for deception and fraud if that car is delivered with
34,147.3 miles on the odometer,... .."
And I would agree, but I don't think the analogy is relevant. It speaks
only to "wear and tear."
Burgy