Let's see if I can get through this without putting everyone to sleep. And please don't take the joking personally. It's my way of trying to keep what I say interesting, as well as showing that I enjoy the discussion, and it's not personal in any way. Just a friendly discussion between two Brothers in Christ.
Your rebuttal doesn't work, Rick. Just because Adam might not have had this or that evidence of aging (and more on the type you are suggesting in a second, because you are here begging the question) doesn't mean that he wouldn't have had the appearance of age. Are you seriously going to suggest that a brand new Adam, created "fully grown" and fully functioning would not appear older than a newborn infant? Don't be ACB. When we studied him in some detail and found that he didn't have some of those age markers, they would be regarded as the oddity. We wouldn't say, "Hmm, how does this new born look really old?" We'd say, "Why does this old guy not have these aspects of his age?"
To your first question, if I were competent enough to examine Adam by going back in time in the DeLorean, I would say that Adam looks fully grown, but not old. So, I guess I'd say he looks more grown than a newborn, but not necessarily older.
Instead of saying, "why does this old guy not have aspects of his age?", I'd tend to think we'd ask why this fully grown man doesn't show any signs of age. To help you understand better, think Mearth or Benjamin Button.
But now let's revisit the things you are talking about, wrinkles, spots, etc. That's not a sign of aging. That's a sign of decay. A human body that was perfectly regenerated every day wouldn't any of those features, either. So those signs, YECs say, are marks of the Fall. So by appealing to them, you are begging the question.
I know science isn't your specialty, but wrinkles, age spots, grey hair, etc. happen as people age. Therefore, they are signs of age. And living people usually don't decay. That happens when we die.
No question begging involved. It's called looking at the evidence of aging, then concluding someone has or has not aged.
But let's press this now one step further, both with Adam and with the bottle of wine. You say that appearance of age makes God deceptive, a liar, that such a god is not the God of the Bible (or at least, Rich does--he ought to be condemned for such divisive rhetoric, too). And yet "his" God does the same.
I'm not sure I've ever said that I believe YECs worship a different God, just because they make God out to be deceptive.
Suppose Adam is created fully formed, adult, and so on. So what about his baby teeth? Apparently he was created with his adult teeth. But all humans go through baby teeth. So Adam was created with a "false history," right? You'd look at Adam and assume there must have been baby teeth that were never there.
You do realize that typically, humans are born, and then age, right? Which typically means we all have baby teeth before they fall out, and adult teeth replace them. If we assume Adam was created as a fully grown man, he probably didn't have baby teeth. Ever. I don't think that's too unreasonable to surmise. In fact, if a competent dentist examined Adam, I bet he would see that there was no evidence that Adam ever had baby teeth. Which would just be more evidence for Adam not aging.
Or what about his chromosomes? He is created with 46, right?
I have no reason to assume he was or wasn't. I really have no idea.
But there's that false history, because what about the egg and sperm he came from? They didn't exist, but that's how humans come to be.
That's how humans who are conceived, come to be. Are you arguing for Adam being conceived and born? Aren't we in agreement in at least the idea that Adam was created fully grown?
What about the old joke about the belly button? If he had one, that's another false history. So fine, he didn't have one of those (note that you have to say that, because, again, you'd be accusing God of making a false history).
I would assume that if Adam wasn't born, then no outie nor innie.
More fun, and here's a biggie: how about his immunity? So you say that death and disease have always been in the world. So God creates Adam totally fresh, a fully functional human. Guess what kind of immune system a newborn has. Pretty much nothing.
Just not true. At least according to this
And how do you think we get our immunity? Our bodies develop them. So either God creates Adam with a fully function immune system (another false history), or He doesn't and then sends Adam out into the world of viruses and bacteria. And yet somehow Adam's immune system lets him live like that for hundreds of years. Hmm. Smells fishy to me.
Doesn't smell fishy to me. Smells kinda fruity. Like the fruit of the tree of life that Adam ate to keep him from dying physically. Who needs an immune system, when one has fruit from the tree of life? Sheesh Jac, how could you overlook that one?
We could keep going. "New born" Adam can walk and lift his head. But humans don't have that capacity at first. They have to build those muscles up by using them. False history.
If Adam was created fully grown, do you think God would've given him the neck strength of a newborn? Oh wait, you forgot about Adam's penis and sexual maturity. Adam must've gone through puberty, in order to be able to father children right? So, is that false history too? Or do ya think that maybe God created Adam as an adult?
Adam's finger nails. All false history, there. Those are dead cells. Dead cells, by definition, used to be alive. So God gave Adam the false history of having live cells he never had?
Um...not quite Jac. Fingernails and hair are made of keratin. Which is a protein made of dead cells. Fingernails are not alive, AND NEVER WERE. The cells that make the fingernails are alive.
A simple google search would've shown you this stuff Jac. It's not rocket surgery.
And the same could be said about the wine, as I've already suggested. Wine presumes grapes. So a Young Wine Creationist says that Jesus created the wine with appearance of age. And Old Wine Creationist says, "Bah--you have a false god. Your god has created a false history. Since the grapes never existed that the wine came from, but the wine presumes grapes and time for the sugar to ferment, then your god is deceptive." That's a stupid position. But then again, so is Rich's argument. It's dishonest. It's slanderous. It's irrational because it begs the question (insofar as you take away death and decay, you take away a lot of the argument for a very old universe).
Wine presumes grapes? Even wine that was instantly turned to wine, from water, miraculously by Jesus?
There's no appearance of age in the jugs of wine that were miraculously turned from water. There's only appearance of wine, where there used to be water.
So we can agree to disagree. You can think the rebuttal is stupid. I'm telling you that, in my opinion, the argument itself against the appearance of age is so stupid that it ought to be banned from these boards (literally, no exaggeration here) for being what it is: an attempt to belittle and slander fellow believers.
With arguments like the ones you just presented, I can see why someone would want the subject banned. I can see how one wouldn't want the topic brought up, if that's all there is to offer against it. But I thought you like to be challenged. At the very least, it helps you strengthen you arguments. And at the most, if you honestly read what you're saying, maybe you'll come to your senses, and at least admit that your arguments don't hold water.
So yes. I guess we will have to agree to disagree for now.
But I will say one thing. Your points have gotten me thinking. Some of the things you brought up, got me thinking that TE may not be so wrong. Not that you were trying to, but you actually made some pretty good arguments for Adam actually being born.