From: John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
> Steve wrote:
>
> "I don't think it would be in the best interest for a YEC to
> actually propose a deceptive God, although that is a result when the
> implications drawn from the "appearance of age" argument is taken to a
> logical conclusion."
>
> I disagree. My specific claim is that Gosse's book, which is
> in print BTW, makes a credible, if not persuasive (to me) argument
> that a "deceptive god hypothesis" is not necessary.
>
You are disagreeing with what?
(1) It would not be in the best interest for YECs to propose a "deceptive
God."
or
(2) a "deceptive God" is a result when the implications drawn from the
"appearance of age" argument are taken to a
logical conclusion."
Note I only said "a" logical conclusion. It sounds like you are disagreeing
with a point I didn't make. Just trying to follow along.
Appearance of Age may be a persuasive argument for some when looking a
"changeless" Creation by suggesting it only appears older than it actually
is, just to hold to a particular interpretation of Scripture, which seems
rather ad-hoc. But how persuasive is the argument when we watch these events
while they are actually occurring, such as SN1987A. This is an instance of
an event that was witnessed, that actually happened approx. 168,000 years
ago. This would suggest that we witnessed a false history, in the making.
There would had to have been a change in its appearance from a star to an
appearance of a star that had gone supernova. I suppose that could fall
under a whole new subdivision of Appearance of Age arguments, Dynamic
Appearance of Age arguments.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 15 2001 - 14:16:27 EST