Trying to be brief -- here is my reply:
>>I don't know where we're going here>>
This began as simply musings on my part. I am not particularly trying to
espouse a position -- rather, I am trying to see the logical consequences
of some assumptions and geDanken problems (did I get that term right?
"Thought problems.")
I hold no particular ceationist position, YEC, PC or TE, myself, though I
tend to favor a PC approach. I'm a physicist, not a geologist or
biologist, and am unqualified to fairly evaluate claims in those areas. I
see substantial difficulties in the TE and PC approach and the YEC
approach is feasible only if one admits that "science" has nothing to say
on the matter.
>>If the issue is simply that we don't know exactly where a
fiat-creation-with-functionally-mandated-apparent-age would differ from a
creation with -real- age, then that's interesting, but hardly an
objection to
an old earth or to evolutionary theory.>>
I'll agree. It only makes such an explanation feasible, not probable;
certainly not "scientific." But that is not the only issue. Seer other
posts I have made on the relationship of this question to the wine at
Cana and other Biblical stories.
>>On the other hand, if the contention is "If God created by fiat, there
would be
no empirically discernible difference between objects so created and
those
developed naturally", then there are real problems. (I'll call this "the
contention".)>>
I think this is my contention.
>>"The contention" can have two broad contexts. (There are more, of
course, but
let's simplify.) If
(1) God generally created via evolution or some similarly lengthy
divinely
guided natural process, and he supernaturally and instantaneously created
a
number of objects (wine, fish, etc.) to be -materially identical- to
their
natural counterparts then of course they will (being materially
identical) have ALL the signs of age that the natural objects have. The
contention isn't very contentious in this case.>>
I think it might be, but your #2 (below) is more interesting (to me).
>>BUT if (2) God created all objects instantaneously by fiat, then I
can't see any reason why ALL aspects of age will be built in to them,
including those that are unrelated to an object's function or nature (as
I expressed earlier, and Brian detailed).
You've given compelling reasons to think that SOME or MANY aspects of age
will
be built-in even in case (2), but no reasons that I can see that ALL
would be
(which is what the contention above requires).>>
OK. SOME aspects will be there. What ones would not be? What is your
criteria for deciding which ones are related and not related? It seems to
me that you must claim to "know the mind of God" to make that kind of
assessment. Much as Gould decided the thumb of the Panda is ill-designed,
and therefore unworthy of a "god."
>Beyond that, you need to decide which of two "modal" spins you'd be
arguing for
here:
(2a) The contention is POSSIBLY true -- that it, it is POSSIBLE
(logically, at
least) that if God created all things instantaneously, then he created
them
with every aspect of age and even apparent evolutionary ancestry.
This seems uncontroversial amongst orthodox Christians. From an orthodox
Ch
ristian perspective, the burden of proof would be on those who deny this.
But
remember that little of interest follows from the mere -possible- truth
of this
contention.>>
If this is so (little interest), then we should disengage. For thatis all
I am looking at. I happen to think it of large interest, but that's just
me.
>>(2b) The contention is LIKELY true -- that is it is LIKELY that
if God created
all things instantaneously, then he created them with every aspect of age
and
even apparent evolutionary ancestry.>>
No.
>>or (2c) The contention is IN FACT true.
This seems very controversial, and the burden of proof would be on those
who
assert this. On the up side, if you can show this, you've shown
something of
serious interest.>>
Again, no.
>>You've offered numerous and fairly uncontroversial examples of where we
would expect to find apparent age in properly functioning context (2)
objects
(especially organisms -- e.g., oxygen in the blood as though one had
breathed,
etc.), but none of those strongly support the claim ALL aspects of the
context
(2) objects (especially the subtler dating techniques) would be
consistent with
age and an evolutionary history. To justify something like (2b) or (2c),
one
need offer strong arguments as to why God would build in appearances of
age in
ALL aspects, -even those that add no value whatever to the object in
question-.
(Again, see Brian's details.)>>
I'm not sure I agree with your " one need offer strong arguments as to
why God would build in appearances of age" statement. But I've addressed
that one above.
Enough of this -- happy holidays!
Did you "break my code" in my earlier post?
Burgy