[asa] The Apparent Age Strikes Back

It seems that trying to send replies from the previous thread
(http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200605/#227) wasn't working, so I will
continue here. A quick summary: I'm the crazy man trying to argue that a
conventional YEC/"literal" Genesis reading entails a presumption of
Gosse-like complete apparent age. Yes, fossils in the ground at Eden and all
that. I'm well aware that this is at odds with pretty much everyone since
Gosse (see e.g. the ASA page links on apparent age:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa.htm), but I believe my analysis
adequately deals with all the major objections.

My case is argued in a (draft) paper online here:
http://www.hlfallout.net/~josh/apparent_age.pdf (last updated today)

I would definitely appreciate some critiques (or even support!) from those
interested. A thanks to those responded in the last thread, but there must
be much more to be said considering how much Gosse took a beating. I have
also made some fairly major revisions to the paper since the last thread
(esp. in sections II and IV), for those who took a look before.

A couple of quick notes:
-I am not arguing for any particular reading of Genesis as the correct one.
Nor am I directly considering the substantive content of earth/universe
history. My argument here is a conditional question: IF one takes the
conventional YEC reading, THEN what should one expect in creation's apparent
age.
-I have already attempted to deal with the conventional objections to
complete apparent age in the paper (including the major arguments from
JASA/ASA articles, book reviews and other articles) -- so I apologize for
the "it's in the paper!" replies when I read the standard "you make God a
deceiver" comments. I don't think my argument has been put forward
elsewhere, so it's probably not helpful to offer a criticism without reading
the paper itself. I'm not just saying "God can do anything so He could put
fossils in the ground!"

Anyway, here's a reply to Ed from the last thread:

> ED: Josh, adding your view to that of the concordists
> and accommodationists on this list makes a pretty
> round-table discussion leading nowhere but doubt. Each
> person is hoping to feel certain and comfortable with
> their view about the Bible's "truth," and yet none of
> your three can agree basically what the Bible says in
> the first place, i.e., how literally should say,
> Genesis, be understood and interpreted in and of
> itself? And secondly, none of you three can agree on
> just how far "God" WOULD go to make THEIR view the one
> and only truly certain one, but if you believe GOD
> agrees with your interpretation of Genesis, then the
> argument has ended, period, because GOD can do
> anything.

Let's not confuse things. I'm not saying anything about the preferred
reading of Genesis, let alone God's preferred interpretation. I am merely
challenging conventional considerations of apparent age in the YEC
framework. It is my argument that the conventional view (i.e.
minimal/partial apparent age) is a critical misjudgement. I'm sorry if this
isn't really explaining much new, but I need to clarify exactly what I am
(and am not) arguing.

> (Having realized the above, I don't see much hope in
> getting Bible beleivers to agree. But let Glenn and
> Paul read your paper and read my summation above of
> the situation and see what they have to say.)

> ~~~~~~~~~

> I just skimmed your paper, and have nothing to add
> except that it is based, as I said above, on how you
> read Genesis (apparently as literally as possible),
> and on how you expect God to create (i.e., via a
> thorough apparent age mimicry, even when the creation
> of some things does not demand the creation of their
> "apparent age" in all respects, such as age spots on
> human skin or all the rings inside a tree).

Well, yes, I extrapolate on the basis of the conventional YEC "literal"
reading -- that is the whole point! You can't consider apparent age in the
YEC scenario if you don't build on the YEC reading.

> Does your
> view of "apparent age" also agree with Gosse's view
> that God might even create fake histories of creatures
> living and dying and evolving on earth over previous
> millennia that never really existed, but still God
> felt moved to create the bones of such creatures in
> the earth beneath our feet in order to simulate a vast
> apparent age for the earth?

Yes, as horrified as you sound, that is exactly the sort of thing I expect
in creation! The reasoning behind that expectation is the subject of the
paper above.

Regards,

-Josh

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.