What about mitochondrial DNA? If Eve did not have mitochondrial DNA, then how would any of us have it? (How would she even have been alive? Isn't mitochondria necessary for mammalian life forms?) And if she did have it, then her genome suggests parentage and an evolutionary ancestry.
Again, what suggests common ancestry is not the bare existence of mitochondrial DNA, but the actual content of the mitochondrial DNA. If there were, indeed, mitochondrial DNA in humans but everything about it (including codons, nucleotides, etc.) was radically different from apes, that would be strong evidence against common ancestry. This is not the case, of course, so YECs have to wave their hands and talk about a "common blueprint" or a "common design".
This is semantics, QMR.
Perhaps better words could have been used to make the point, but it still stands. ALL natural miracles include the "appearance of age" insofar as there is something natural which did not occur via natural processes. But there are "appearances of age" consistent with miracles and appearances of age which are not. The latter can be used as evidence against a claimed miracle; the former cannot. Deny this, and you veer into irrationality.
If there's NO evidence which could even be hypothetically be used against a claimed miracle, then belief in miracles is essentially irrational. There is no means to distinguish a false miracle claim from a true one.
But if the "appearance of age" (which a natural miracle must necessarily have) is going to be claimed as definitive evidence against such miracle (which is, more or less, the rationalistic/naturalistic objection) then non-belief in miracles is essentially irrational - it is claiming as evidence against X something that X must have.
As you probably know, one of the biggest arguments against YEC is the starlight problem. Some YECs have attempted to answer it by positing starlight created in transit. You would rule this argument right out of hand by saying the starlight has the appearance of age, of having come from the star. I would not. I rule out the argument because the starlight shows direct evidence of supernova explosions which (if YEC is correct) did not happen - whereas the starlight does not show direct evidence of having come from the star - it is inferred to have done so based on the assumption of no miracle, which then cannot be turned around and used as evidence against the assumption. See the difference?
You are saying, in Adam's case, that's a history that did not happen.
If Adam claimed to have memories of a childhood (which would not exist were he instantaneously created), that would be evidence against instantaneous creation. But you would simply like to take his existence as evidence against such; which, as I have shown, is a fallacy.
Age and history are interlinked. If you cut open a tree, the rings can indicate how many summers and winters passed in the tree's history.
Right. So an instantaneously-created tree should have no rings.
If you look at geological strata, the layers can indicate the chronology of its formation. If you take a glass of wine, there are chemical analyses that can tell you what kind of grape it came from, and estimate for how long it was fermented and aged.
Right, assuming these things occurred via natural processes. Again, I ask you, what would or would not count as evidence against the claimed miracle at Cana? If the mere existence of the wine itself, then every miracle claim (at least natural one) will be rejected for the same reason.
Granted, you can't cut open a human and count the rings, but we do have DNA analyses to examine a person's heredity, and a human even contains a record of its personal history—namely, its memory. At the very least, a human who can walk, talk, and control his or her bladder and bowels will indicate a history of having learned those things during its life. And if we speak the person's language then we can learn far more about their personal history. Unless you contend that Adam appeared fully-formed as an adult but without any memory or acquired knowledge (as much a tabula rasa as any infant—and equally as babbling and helpless), then not only his physical appearance but the contents of his mind would both indicate having a history. Though maybe you want to suppose that he had memories implanted in him when he was created, like Rachael in Blade Runner. But still, that would give a false appearance of history. The other option, I suppose, is to say that Adam and Eve appeared as babies, and perhaps you could have them raised by kindly gorillas, or chimpanzees, or a tribe of Neanderthals. But at that point you would be closer to Mowgli or Tarzan than Genesis.
No, Adam would have had infused knowledge implanted into his brain but not infused false memories. Unfortunately, we do not have access to his DNA so can make no conclusion regarding heredity.
