The simplest answer to the apparent age argument is that it makes God a
liar.
Phillip Gosse and Chateaubriand put it forward in 1857 and c 1802 and it was
a lead balloon.
I am sorry Vernon but Ilose patience with this type of decietful argument
not to mention fanciful numerics.
Let's get back to Jesus who died and rose for us , thst is simpler and the
heart of the gospel
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "george murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: My Daughter is a YEC
>
> The wine from Cana (& other NT miracles) has been appealed to
> several times
> as an attempt to justify the notion of apparent age in creation. It
> doesn't work.
> Permit me to bury it with appropriate
> honors. For simplicity I stick with Cana & the 1st Genesis creation
account.
>
> 1. There is ample evidence that the 4th Gospel is set in the
early 1st
> century in Palestine, & thus that the wedding at Cana took place
> around A.D. 30. (I
> waive for the time being any questions about the historicity of
> Jn.2.) I.e., we know
> the age of the wine which was made from water. We know no such thing
> for the things
> created in Gen.1. In fact the whole debate is about how to date the
> heavens & the
> earth, plants & animals of the past, &c, questions that involve the
> interpretation of
> the Genesis text and of later parts of the Bible which might link it with
known
> historical events. Thus the two situations are not analogous.
> 2. We don't have any of the wine from Cana & aren't likely
> to find any.
> When a certain amount of H20 (with a little D20) was converted in
> C2H5OH, what were
> the isotopic proportions of C14 and C12 in the ethanol? What age
> would carbon dating
> have given for this wine. We don't know. It begs the question to say
that the
> C14/C12 ratio would have been the same as for any other wine made in
> Galilee that
> year.
> 3. The assumption that Vernon seems to make below & that is
> tacitly made by
> others who use this argument is that the change of water to wine involved
a
> conversion of water to wine in a way that simply violates the laws
> describing natural
> processes. We don't know this to be the case. If, as I have
> suggested before (& for
> which there is considerable support in the Jewish & Christian
> traditions) miracles
> are better thought of as extremely rare natural processes whose
> possibility God had
> put into creation then the very lack of understanding of these
> processes whiich makes
> us label them "miracle" makes it impossible to know what the apparent
> age of the
> miraculous wine would have been.
> 4. Creation in the beginning is described by Vernon as a
> "miracle" but some
> care is needed with this. Certainly the existence of the universe -
> i.e., anything
> other than God - is not something that the laws describing the inner
> workings of the
> universe itself can account for. In that sense the fundamental act
> of creation is a
> "miracle". But there is no reaon to hold that all the creative
> events spoken of in
> Genesis 1 are to be understood as "miraculous". In fact, Genesis 1
> describes the
> origin of plants & animals as being from the waters & the earth, in
> accord with God's
> command - i.e., mediated creation. (I have pointed this out
> repeatedly on this list
> & hate to belabor the point but obviously there are some who just
> don't get it.)
> There is absolutely nothing in Genesis 1 or anywhere else in the
> Bible to make us say
> that life is a miracle.
> 5. The event at Cana is called a "sign". It points to the
> presence of the
> creator in Jesus - i.e., the one who gives wine all the time by
> natural processes
> does it here in some more dramatic fashion.
> (Cf. point 3.) Creation itself clearly is not a "sign" in the same way.
> 6. I wonder if anytone really believes the apparent age
> argument. It always
> seems to be used as a final fallback position when all the other
arguments -
> questions about radioactive debating, constancy of the speed of
> light, &c &c - have
> failed. If people really believed the apparent age argument they'd
> cheerfully agree
> that radioactive dating, supernovas, the expansion of ther universe
> &c all really do
> seem to give old ages for the earth & the universe & would say up
> front that that
> doesn't matter because all these ages are only apparent. Instead
> they're continually
> coming up with arguments to try to show that there's scientific
> evidence for a young
> earth & universe, a procedure that would make no sense if the ages were
only
> apparent. It's only when these scientific arguments fail that they
> fall back on
> apparent age - which is why I called it a counsel of desperation.
> 7. As for apparent age being "a thorn in the flesh of the
Christian
> evolutionist" - the only pain it inflicts is that of having to waste
> time pointing
> out what's wrong with it.
>
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
>
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > George,
> >
> > You wrote in part:
> >
> > > The fundamental objection to apparent age, whether in its
philosophical or
> > > religious guise, is theological - it makes God the creator of an
> >illusion or,
> > > more pointedly, a hoax.
> >
> > In drawing attention to the 'water into wine' miracle, I believe Walt
has
> > effectively
> > refuted this charge. Indeed, it is clear that the outcome of many
> >of the Lord's
> > miracles involved an element of 'apparent age' - as, for example,
> >the fragments
> > of
> > bread gathered up following the feeding of the 5000, the healed
> >limbs and their
> > accompanying muscle tissue and tendons, the eyes of the once blind
> >Bartimaeus,
> > and so on.
> > Were these miracles performed with deception in mind? Surely not
> >(though we would
> >
> > have to admit that a pedantic analyst might be misled by them!). Would
you
> > therefore
> > not agree that, once one accepts the principle of miracle, then the
> >possibility
> > of 'apparent age'
> > surely follows?
> >
> > What then of the miracle of creation? God has provided an account of
the
> > unfolding of this event along with a timescale. Thus He can hardly
> >be accused of
> > a deliberate deception if current observation and deduction (based
> >on particular
> > assumptions) lead men to conclude otherwise. Surely it has then
> >become a matter
> > of _self-deception_ fuelled by unbelief on their part.
> >
> > You continue:
> >
> > > The apparent age idea cannot be refuted scientifically. Neither
> >can the idea
> > > that any physical phenomenon we don't understand is brought about
> >by invisible
> > > demons. But apparent age in a religious context is a counsel
> > > of desperation and should be rejected by anyone who takes the
doctrine of
> > > creation seriously.
> >
> > George, I have argued that 'apparent age' is a necessary outcome of
certain
> > types of miracle - which include the miracle of creation. It is
> >therefore hardly
> > a 'counsel of desperation' for those of my persuasion, but rather a
truth
> > which is clearly demonstrated in the Scriptures and one that is - and
> > ever will be - a thorn in the flesh for the Christian evolutionist.
> >
> > Shalom,
> >
> > Vernon
> >
> > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 26 2002 - 18:18:02 EDT