Re: Gosse

R. Joel Duff (Virkotto@intrnet.net)
Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:21:01 -0600 (CST)

>John W. Burgeson wrote:
>>
>> As promised, here are my notes on Gosse's book.
>
>[big snip]
>
>> If the
>> earth were perfectly antiquated then it would be impossible to tell the
>> difference between (i) a world which actually went through long
>> processes of aging, and (ii) a world which was perfectly antiquated.
>> If the two are impossible of differentiation, common sense prefers (i)
>> over (ii). If we conduct our science and geology on the grounds of a
>> world having gone through such a process, it would be rather absurd
>> to affirm that it had not really gone through such a process Such a
>> scheme as Gosse propounds, clever as it is, is a tacit admission of
>> the correctness of geology. Better sense will state that the ideal time
>> is
>> the real time. If this is done Gosse offers us no basis of the
>> reconciliation of geology and Genesis and, therefore, we must look
>> elsewhere." B Ramm
>>
>
>John-
>
>This has been precisely my problem with Ideal Time, and various attempts
>to "partially" use it in geochronlogical explanations. I have asked
>listers elsewhere just what the difference is between perfect thorough
>ideal time and identical real time. I never got a response. This is
>the point I think ideal time theorists must deal with and find most
>difficult.

Brian,

Exactly! This is the same problem I have. I have dealt with quite a few
people who hold quite strongly to the idea of Ideal time. This is what I
was trying to address when I proposed to them what this meant in my
appeance of age post to which most agreed with my hypothetical proposal. I
wrote up the stuff on the Praclaux crater to show that even for what most
people believe are post-flood deposits there is evidence of great age.
When I put the question to these people as to how they would interpret the
sediment records in these craters I was told these were also created with
the appearence of age. Then I said, but what then of the Flood, didn't it
have ANY effect on the surface of the earth? To that I received silence!!
This seems the greatest stumbling block to Ideal time. One rock was
created with the appearance of age while another is the result of the
action of a global flood. But this creates a problem. The methods used to
date the rock created with the appearnce of age really are giving a correct
"Ideal" age though not real age but the same methods to date a flood or
post-flood rock are lying to us because the ideal age and real age should
be the same but aren't. I am always left with the impression that my
friends are resorting to "appearance of age" simply to explain that which
they cannot explain in any other way.

Joel Duff

**T**E**N**N**E**S**S**E**E**V**O**L**U**N**T**E**E**R**S**
,-~~-.___.
Joel and Dawn Duff / | ' \ Spell Check?
Carbondale IL 62901 ( ) 0
e-mail: duff@siu.edu \_/-, ,----'
or virkotto@intrnet.net ==== //
or nickrent-lab@siu.edu / \-'~; /~~~(O)
* * * * * * / __/~| / | * * *
\\\/// \\\/// =( _____| (_________| \\\///

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/ homepage: http://www.intrnet.net/~virkotto _/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/