Thanks to Burgy for providing a more concise summary of Gosse's argument than I have previously seen.
Gosse's main defense against the "deception" charge leveled against appearance of age/history arguments seems to be that things were created mature so that the creation could properly function. This might be a reasonable position IF all appearances of age were in that category. I could buy God creating Adam with nutrients in his body from never-eaten food, or trees with rings in them (are the rings really needed for the tree to stand?), or petroleum in the ground.
But what about all those signs of age that have nothing to do with the proper functioning of creation? Surely there is no need for the moon to have 4 billion years of dust on it in order for creation to properly function. What is the function of isotope ratios in rocks? What about distant supernovas? What about annual layers in ice cores (even if the ice "needed" to be deep, the layering would not be needed)?
Does Gosse claim that *all* signs of age are in the category of things that needed to be that way in order for creation to function? If so, I think I've given 4 examples (none of which were known in Gosse's day) that say his argument cannot stand. If not, how does he deal with the signs of age/history that are not needed or even relevant to the creation being fully functioning and mature?
Allan Harvey, steamdoc@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 15:01:47 EST