"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."
Let me focus on your last sentence. Gould has stated that the Panda's
thumb is not designed well. Others have faulted the wiring of the human
eye as substandard. You have stated that " most of the things we
associate with age are
detrimental ... ." But are not all these statements of the same kind --
the kind that says "I know good design from bad design and benefits from
detriments?" In the case of a fiat creation, it is also saying "I know
better than God how to do something."
Maybe so. Once again, if we were there (on the 8th day or at the Cana
wedding), what could we measure and how could we tell the difference
between "fiat" and natural process? Give me a specific example of what we
would measure.
Burgy