[...]
>
>A newly created unicorn that did not appear (to scientific
>investigations) to "appear old -- i.e. with a history, would probably not
>work!
>
>A newly created tree, 20 feet tall, necessarily has to have tree rings
>showing growth that never happened. Else it could not stand; the tree
>rings give it strength.
>
>Adam, at creation, had to have blood circulating which had it it energy
>and oxygen from food and breaths never taken. But is this "lying?" If
>such were not there, Adam would have fallen dead immediately.
>
OK, you have convinced me that some "appearance of age" would
probably be inevitable in any miracle or fiat creation. But
to avoid the charge of deception it would seem to me that any
appearance of age would have to be a necessary *and* secondary
consequence of the creation. The examples you give above
would certainly qualify. The problem as I see it is that
many if not most of the things we associate with age are
detrimental rather than beneficial to an organism.
For example, you mention Adam's blood circulating through
his veins. Would these veins be compliant or would they
show signs of stiffening due to fatigue or protein
cross-linking? Would they contain deposits on the inner
walls? Would Adam's teeth show wear from the meals he
never ate? Would he have scars or bruises? Would he have
callouses or wrinkles? Would there be damaged proteins,
membranes and DNA resulting from the oxygen radicals which
are a by-product of normal metabolism? Would there be a
degredation in the performance of essential molecules in the
cells resulting from the slow process of glucose cross-linking?
etc. etc.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"... we have learned from much experience that all
philosophical intuitions about what nature is going
to do fail." -- Richard Feynman