Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
Creation science seems to reject the notion of apparent age...
Perhaps certain groups do but many groups proclaim the notion of apparent age...as far as I know, and I am a YEC.
I would tend to think that the plants in the garden would have had the appearance of various stages of maturity, but that is speculation.
cavediver writes:
What were the constituents of the soil in Eden?
That is an interesting question. I would imagine it to be the best possible soil...most likely unlike any that we've seen. My personal theory is that our present soils are mineral deficient (and therefore so are we) when compared to the pre-flood soils. But again, that is pure speculation on my part.
I know of one organization that manufacturers colloidial minerals...the minerals are got from shale, I believe...supposedly rich in a host of minerals. The thought is that the shale is the remnants of the pre-flood plants...if that is true, then the high mineral content might be an indication of the mineral content of the preflood topsoils.
I take colloidial minerals, but I buy a cheaper brand, which may not be harvested from shale.
cavediver writes:
I believe that consideration of this question leads either to an apparent age or to a non-scientific miraculous event
Well, I'm not so sure that a soil necessarily indicates "apparent age" (however I understand what you mean...soil is formed by errosion today and therefore requires time). I wanted to point out here, however, that creation
is miraculous.
Is there a group of creationists, who are proclaiming that creation is not miraculous?
-- Jason
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-30-2005 04:33 AM
™ Version 4.2
