w_fortenberry writes:
... those compounds which we consider to be "organic" (in the traditional since) are considered so only because they are the ones God chose pull out of the ground and use when He created life.
Well, God would have been the one who put them
into the ground in the first place, wouldn't He? That's what I'm kinda getting at: From
our vantage point, those compounds get into the ground from the decomposition of living things. If God put those same compounds into the soil during the creation, then that soil would have the "appearance of age" - i.e. it would appear that living things had died and decomposed.
These "organic" compounds are not necessarily dependent on living things for their formation.
Apparently, for some of them, living things are the only known
natural source.
The point of the OP seems to be to ask: did God create the soil with the appearance of age? That is, from
our point of view, would the soil in the garden appear more than 7 days old?
To claim that God just put fake fossils in the ground is the same as claiming that organic compounds cannot be created in the absence of life.
Nobody denies that
some organic compounds can be created in the laboratory. But creating soil that
looks like "regular" soil - i.e. soil containing the remains of living things, whether fossil remains or chemical remains - smacks of fakery.
Incidentally, what you're saying seems to be the opposite of the arguments against abiogenesis. While the abiogenesis critics claim that some organic molecules
cannot form abiotically, you say that the
residue of life can be formed abiotically.
(Kinda like fingerprints appearing without benefit of fingers.
)
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC