However, -I- still don't see any reason, though there may be one, to think that
ALL age aspects would be built in, particularly those not relevant to its
proper functioning.
Again, I argue this -unless- you -simply mean- by "thorough" or "perfect" that
God builds in not only (a) all relevant aspects of an object's "nature" and
functionality, but also (b) "the appearance of age and an evolutionary history
down to the atomic level", to quote myself in context. But then the truth of
your claim is assured but trivial, true only by definition of "thorough" or
"perfect" to include (b).
If you definitionally mean only (a), you could still argue that (b) follows
from that maybe this is what you mean by: such things "must necessarily have
been created with an apparent history"), but I'd like to see an -argument- for
such a -sweeping- conclusion: that EVERYTHING about the object would reflect
apparent age, even apparent evolutionary descent, even if YEC is true (that is,
not just looking at the case where God would create by fiat one horse just like
all the other horses he created via evolution, in which case He might create
the fiat horse with an apparent evolutionary history, just so it'd be just like
the natural, evolved horses).
There may be such an argument -- I just haven't seen or thought of one that I
find very strong.
It'd be neat to hear from biologists, geologists, paleontologists, et al here
who know the various things in animate and inanimate objects that
non-functionally indicate age or evolutionary ancestry. They'd be the ones to
make up the tests to decide on the fiat creation issue, if by "thorough" and
"perfect" you mean only something like (a).
--John