Okay, I'm not going to be able to prove diddly here - but it strikes me that you're leaving out an option. The assumption that the appearance of age must be deceptive leaves out a alternate possibility - that the 'appearance' is a misunderstanding of the actual process(es).
That, of course, may not be the case - but to leave it out as a posit frames the argument poorly. It also creates a rather tunnel view on both sides - without acknowledging that hey, maybe, just maybe, all the evidence isn't in (and by both sides I MEAN both sides. Seriously, using Scripture to ascribe something it never specifically addresses - or seems to care about - is really shaky at best).
And for the record, I'm an AoE agnostic - I don't think either side truly knows enough to conclusively date the Earth, the Universe or the average lonely geek.
That, of course, may not be the case - but to leave it out as a posit frames the argument poorly. It also creates a rather tunnel view on both sides - without acknowledging that hey, maybe, just maybe, all the evidence isn't in (and by both sides I MEAN both sides. Seriously, using Scripture to ascribe something it never specifically addresses - or seems to care about - is really shaky at best).
And for the record, I'm an AoE agnostic - I don't think either side truly knows enough to conclusively date the Earth, the Universe or the average lonely geek.
Comment