Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood

[HypnoToad]

I just wish someone could possibly make a noticeable post that made our rules clear.

 

[mark kennedy]

"Why is it that many people, including many Christians, can’t see the geologic evidence for the Genesis Flood? It is usually because they have bought into the evolutionary idea that “the present is the key to the past.” They are convinced that, because today’s geological processes are so slow, the rock strata and the earth’s rock layers took millions of years to form."

Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood

Evidence #1—Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.

I'm not sure how that works, the water would have had to wash the oceans through the canyon valley. I guess it makes since if the waters of the ocean and the waters of the flood were getting intermingled and then washed down.

Evidence #2—Rapid burial of plants and animals.

This peaked my curiosity but honestly I am lost when it comes to geology and astronomy.

Explanation: If these unconformities represent from 10 to 125 million years of “missing time,” which is the uniformitarian interpretation, why is there no sign of either physical or chemical erosion between the layers? Why is there no sign of channeling, canyons or valleys, as we see with erosion of present-day topography? Could this be classic flood geology on a global scale? 8 Grand Canyon evidences ​

Evidence #3—Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.

For the life of me I can't find anything countering this claim. It would seem to fly in the face of uniformatarian geology.

Evidence #4—Sediment transported long distances.

Drawing a blank here.

Evidence #5—Rapid or no erosion between strata.

The article lost me but I will try to reflect on it as best I can. Geology loses me but this is a pretty indepth article.

The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time

Evidence #6—Many strata laid down in rapid succession.

Searching pretty much at random I found this and it reminded me of your thread on the Dakota dinosaur:

The bones and skeletons of dinosaurs are found in many parts of the world, deposited in water laid strata. Some dinosaurs were swept into piles by the water and mud that became rock. In a park near Vernal, Utah you can see the dinosaur skeletons in water laid rock. Dinosaur bones are even found in water laid rock on the North Slope of Alaska, above the Arctic Circle. The climate of Alaska was warm before the flood, when there were waters above the expanse. Dinosaur fossils have been found in Antarctica. Millions of dinosaurs perished in the world-wide flood. Dr. Austin, geologist, wrote:
The Morrison Formation of the Rocky Mountain region also is tremendously extensive, occurring from New Mexico to Canada and from Kansas to Utah. It is world-famous for its dinosaur fossils. Morrison formation dinosaur skeletons are often articulated, requiring that muscles and ligaments of the large animals were present at the time they were rapidly buried. Sedimentary formations indicating catastrophic flood processes are not confined to North America but occur on other continents as well THE WORLD-WIDE FLOOD​

It was trapped during a massive flood along with a crocodile. I don't think they were fighting, I think they were getting washed down a slope and into a valley.

At any rate, those are my thoughts generated at random.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Gwenyfur]

I just wish someone could possibly make a noticeable post that made our rules clear.

2 point infraction for being a smarty pants

 

[HypnoToad]

2 point infraction for being a smarty pants

If "smarty pants" is against the rules, I'd have a life-ban by now.

 

[Gwenyfur]

If "smarty pants" is against the rules, I'd have a life-ban by now.

we both would

 

[ClearSky]

Hmmm, unfortunately I see a jump from the natural pot to the supernatural frying pan. Kind of reminds me of those that used to say, God created dinosaur fossils to confuse unbelievers.

You may be solving some logical problems by asserting this, but causing all kinds of bigger theological problems. Biblically, this isn't in accord with God's character. Nowhere in scripture do we see anything like this. When God does blind unbelievers, after much stubbornness on their part, He never does it through planting false evidence, etc..

I haven't said God planted evidence to confuse unbelievers. In fact we do not know for certain why He removed all clear evidence for the supernatural events described in the Bible, but even left some evidence pointing to the contrary. However we can make some educated guesses.

One possible reason is that His method for causing a supernatural event - such as the Flood, or the creation of the earth - just does not leave any evidence. It's possible that a temporary break of the laws of nature must be healed afterwards by removing all traces of such a break, or else the big clockwork of the world would be out of sync.

However I do not believe that the reason was His method. I rather believe that there was a purpose behind it. Which we can find in Scripture:

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Now why planted God the tree of knowledge into the garden at all? He wanted to test man. He wanted him to chose between rebellion and pursuit of knowledge, or obedience and self-sufficiency.

We all know how Adam has chosen, and that God consequently made him mortal.

Evidence like dinosaur fossils are just like the knowledge tree. We still have the same choice as Adam, although without the consequences.

And yet he forgot to remove all the marine fossils from mountains.

Because the marine fossils are a) no clear evidence for the flood and b) probably not left by the flood at all.

Bingo! I found it. Unfortunately, it's clear now you don't understand the biblical definition of faith. Faith in the modern vernacular has come to mean "belief apart from evidence." Or as Mark Twain put it, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." The problem is, this was never the understanding the Biblical writers had. I see this so often, it's not funny. People often conflate ancient words with modern ones, not realizing there can be subtle differences. Faith, in biblical terms, was simply trust, and was only as valuable as the one in whom it was placed. Trusting in something you had no evidence for, is very foolish according to the Biblical writers. They didn't want us to go after every wind of doctrine. This is why they were constantly urging us to examine and test what is being said. Here's a great article that should completely transform your understanding of this Biblical term.
Fallacious Faith
Correcting an All-too-Common Misconception
James Patrick Holding

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

 

[Calminian]

....One possible reason is that His method for causing a supernatural event - such as the Flood, or the creation of the earth - just does not leave any evidence.....

Well, actually, that would be a much better way to say it. I think when you say, "God removed evidence," it implies that there really was a abundance of evidence and then God came in with a broom after the fact and erased it all for some unknown purpose, or so that we could exercise blind faith. From an apologetic standpoint I think this is going trigger justified incredulity in your audience. But how you word it above is very reasonable.

Just to expand on how this could happen, think of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. When Philip's job was done, God supernaturally transported him to another place. If a post-event observer examined the area, he would not have seen footprints leaving the area and come to the false conclusion that maybe the Eunich wasn't really with anyone. Now did God remove any evidence? No, it just so happened that by bypassing some natural process, the evidence of those processes were never made.

And you might be surprised to find that your friends and AiG often consider scenarios like this as well. Here's an article you may find interesting about the Methods of the Creator. Dr. John C. Whitcomb makes the case that, since Jesus is revealed in scripture as the very God who Created the universe, it makes sense to look at some of His methods while walking the earth for insights into how He may have created the world. A very insightful read.

Because the marine fossils are a) no clear evidence for the flood and b) probably not left by the flood at all.

Please expand why you're so sure of this. This seems to be what we'd expect to see if all mountains were once under the waters of a global flood catastrophe.

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

I hope you find it helpful. I don't think your ideas are totally off the mark, but just need some fine tuning.

 

[Sunrise78]

I haven't said God planted evidence to confuse unbelievers. In fact we do not know for certain why He removed all clear evidence for the supernatural events described in the Bible, but even left some evidence pointing to the contrary.

I think those who do not see any evidence for the Genesis Flood are beginning with the wrong set of starting assumptions - as I said before, the assumption is that geological processes necessarily take millions of years. They fail to realize that the same evidence used by uniformitarians to argue that geological layers were laid down gradually over millions of years is the same evidence used by creationists to argue that geological layers were laid down by vast amounts of water over a short period of time.

The question is not "who has the best evidence?" but "how do we interpret the evidence?" The past is not something one can directly observe, so one has to make assumptions when dealing with it.

 

[Calminian]

.

 

[ClearSky]

They fail to realize that the same evidence used by uniformitarians to argue that geological layers were laid down gradually over millions of years is the same evidence used by creationists to argue that geological layers were laid down by vast amounts of water over a short period of time.

How can the same evidence prove a slow and a fast production of geological layers at the same time?

I think evidence must prove either a short or a long time between layers, but not both. I have learned that scientific measurements point towards a long time. But maybe I'm wrong here, how would you interpret evidence like the different magnetic orientation of layers or their different radiometric age as proving a fast laydown?

 

[Sunrise78]

How can the same evidence prove a slow and a fast production of geological layers at the same time?

I was not saying that they prove both at the same time, but that one's starting assumptions determine how one interprets the evidence.

I think evidence must prove either a short or a long time between layers, but not both.

I agree.

I have learned that scientific measurements point towards a long time. But maybe I'm wrong here, how would you interpret evidence like the different magnetic orientation of layers or their different radiometric age as proving a fast laydown?

Regarding magnetic field reversals, please see the following:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/760/
http://www.icr.org/article/371/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1233/

And regarding radiometric dating:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059/

God bless.

 

[ClearSky]

Sunrise78, thanks for the links! However, I've been already there, and read already most of that stuff.

Well the problem is - go with that on any CvE forum frequented by atheists and you'll be taken apart. Most of it can be too easily refuted. In short, radiocarbon dating is not used for sediment layers but for organic objects like wood or bones, and thus can not prove any geographic processes. Different decay rates in the past are also difficult to maintain because stable atoms could not exist if physical constants determining decay were different. And in contrary to what was said on the page, magnetic field reversals are part of the current geologic model of the earth and are found in all layers in relatively uniform distances that would be equivalent to half a million years on the geologic time scale. Thus they are in fact not supporting the Creationist but the Geologist view.

In my opinion the evidence for the flood can not be found in nature, but in Scripture.

And I think we can be glad about it. Imagine scientists would find real clear evidence for the flood. With the rising waters, people with their families must have fled to mountain tops. But what would happen if one day a scientist would find a mass extinction site with thousands of human skeletons, men, women and children, embedded in sediment, on a mountain top, a clear indicator that God had killed them all?

You can imagine that in today's world, this would not be helpful for Christianity, but rather an outcry would go through the media and people would begin to hate God.

So I think God was wise not to leave evidence for that.

Maybe he even has not really killed all those people, but just inserted the story in the bible as a warning for future generations what could have happened with sinners against God. But I think it really happened.

 

[Sunrise78]

Sunrise78, thanks for the links!

You're welcome.

However, I've been already there, and read already most of that stuff.

Well the problem is - go with that on any CvE forum frequented by atheists and you'll be taken apart. Most of it can be too easily refuted.

Of course, when we try to play by their materialistic rules as they insist.

In short, radiocarbon dating is not used for sediment layers but for organic objects like wood or bones, and thus can not prove any geographic processes.

I wasn't talking just about radiocarbon dating, but all radiometric dating - i.e. uranium/thorium/lead, potassium/argon, etc. which are used for fossils and rocks that are supposedly millions of years old.

Different decay rates in the past are also difficult to maintain because stable atoms could not exist if physical constants determining decay were different. And in contrary to what was said on the page, magnetic field reversals are part of the current geologic model of the earth and are found in all layers in relatively uniform distances that would be equivalent to half a million years on the geologic time scale. Thus they are in fact not supporting the Creationist but the Geologist view.

I'd be interested to see links detailing this information.

In my opinion the evidence for the flood can not be found in nature, but in Scripture.
And I think we can be glad about it. Imagine scientists would find real clear evidence for the flood. With the rising waters, people with their families must have fled to mountain tops. But what would happen if one day a scientist would find a mass extinction site with thousands of human skeletons, men, women and children, embedded in sediment, on a mountain top, a clear indicator that God had killed them all?

You can imagine that in today's world, this would not be helpful for Christianity, but rather an outcry would go through the media and people would begin to hate God.

So I think God was wise not to leave evidence for that.

Maybe he even has not really killed all those people, but just inserted the story in the bible as a warning for future generations what could have happened with sinners against God. But I think it really happened.

So let me see if I am understanding this ... you are saying that you believe God did send a global flood to judge the world, but that He took away all the evidence of it so that people wouldn't reject Him?

God hasn't ever been afraid of people rejecting Him because of His (righteous) judgment - because judgment is deserved. People today think they are so good that they don't really deserve judgment, but the Bible says otherwise. I don't think God needs to be saved from the consequences of His actions, or that He needs to cover up His actions in history so that people won't reject Him.

Also, I don't get the impression that you understood what I was saying about the issue being about underlying assumptions rather than about evidence per se. Maybe I am wrong and you just disagree?

 

[IrishRockhound]

I'd be interested to see links detailing this information.

From Wikipedia:

"...Originally, however, the past record of geomagnetic reversals was first noticed by observing the magnetic stripe "anomalies" on the ocean floor. Lawrence W. Morley, Frederick John Vine and Drummond Hoyle Matthews made the connection to seafloor spreading in the Morley-Vine-Matthews hypothesis which soon led to the development of the theory of plate tectonics. Given that the sea floor spreads at a relatively constant rate, this results in broadly evident substrate"stripes" from which the past magnetic field polarity can be inferred by looking at the data gathered from simply towing a magnetometer along the sea floor. However, because no existing unsubducted sea floor (or sea floor thrust onto continental plates, such as in the case of ophiolites) is much older than about 180 million years (Ma) in age, other methods are necessary for detecting older reversals."

In simple terms: the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is constantly spreading, and lava is constantly being produced along its length. As the lava hardens, it records the current geomagnetic field in the iron minerals it contains. When the field reverses, the new lava produced records the new geomagnetic field.

Conventional geology holds that the striped pattern of geomagnetic reversals recorded in the spreading sea floor is a record of millions of years of changes in the Earth's magnetic field.

See Further Reading on the wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reversal for more information.

I can also look up some links on radiocarbon dating techniques if you like.

IRH

 

[ClearSky]

I wasn't talking just about radiocarbon dating, but all radiometric dating - i.e. uranium/thorium/lead, potassium/argon, etc. which are used for fossils and rocks that are supposedly millions of years old.

For understanding radiometric dating, the first important thing to understand is that the used methods are very different, yet appear to yield the same results.

The method used for very old ages, such as billions of years, is usually the uranium/lead method on zircon crystals. Zircon has the property that its crystal frame is too tight for lead to escape or penetrate the crystal. For this reason uranium/lead dating can not be disturbed by contaminations, as AiG claims. It has an accuracy of 1%. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

Don't get me wrong: I also believe that all the radiometric data is wrong. But not because of the allegation that all scientific dating methods don't work. They work well and the assumption that all are wrong by a factor of a million is absurd to me. Problem is just that God pre-aged the minerals. Radiometric dating thus gets the results that God intended, but not the real age.

Also, I don't get the impression that you understood what I was saying about the issue being about underlying assumptions rather than about evidence per se. Maybe I am wrong and you just disagree?

I think I understood it, but I probably was not clear in my response.

I have studied Astronomy for 2 years, and during that time I got some insight into the scientific method. There is an underlying assumption. But it is not the assumption that "there is no God". On the contrary, some of my professors were Christians (though no Creationists of course). The underlying assumption was "nature is simple". So when you have two theories that explain the same set of data, scientists tend to choose the simpler explanation.

This is the reason why they assume the earth is old because "it looks old". They do not accept the explanation that it looks old only because God wants it to look so.

So let me see if I am understanding this ... you are saying that you believe God did send a global flood to judge the world, but that He took away all the evidence of it so that people wouldn't reject Him?

I said that we can be glad not to have evidence for some of God's acts, but I am not sure that this was God's intention. I believe he removed the evidence in order to allow for a natural explanation.

There is a clear pattern that can not be ignored. We can only speculate about the reason for that pattern, but it always provides a natural explanation for any phenomenon in nature. At the moment our knowledge about the Big Bang and the evolution of the universe is maybe 20%. But I'm pretty sure that the remaining 80% that scientists might gain in the upcoming centuries will also support perfectly natural explanations.

There must be a reason for this and I believe Genesis and the tree of knowledge gives a hint.

 

[Sunrise78]

From Wikipedia:

"...Originally, however, the past record of geomagnetic reversals was first noticed by observing the magnetic stripe "anomalies" on the ocean floor. Lawrence W. Morley, Frederick John Vine and Drummond Hoyle Matthews made the connection to seafloor spreading in the Morley-Vine-Matthews hypothesis which soon led to the development of the theory of plate tectonics. Given that the sea floor spreads at a relatively constant rate, this results in broadly evident substrate"stripes" from which the past magnetic field polarity can be inferred by looking at the data gathered from simply towing a magnetometer along the sea floor. However, because no existing unsubducted sea floor (or sea floor thrust onto continental plates, such as in the case of ophiolites) is much older than about 180 million years (Ma) in age, other methods are necessary for detecting older reversals."

In simple terms: the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is constantly spreading, and lava is constantly being produced along its length. As the lava hardens, it records the current geomagnetic field in the iron minerals it contains. When the field reverses, the new lava produced records the new geomagnetic field.

Conventional geology holds that the striped pattern of geomagnetic reversals recorded in the spreading sea floor is a record of millions of years of changes in the Earth's magnetic field.

See Further Reading on the wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reversal for more information.

I can also look up some links on radiocarbon dating techniques if you like.

IRH

This explains how conventional geology interprets magnetic reversals, but how does this contradict what was said in the CMI and ICR articles about magnetic reversals? An interpretation of the data, no matter how conventionally accepted, is not the same thing as a fact.

 

[Sunrise78]

For understanding radiometric dating, the first important thing to understand is that the used methods are very different, yet appear to yield the same results.

Yes, oftentimes because results are discarded as invalid if they don't agree with the date that has already been set based on fossil content or position in the geological column.

The method used for very old ages, such as billions of years, is usually the uranium/lead method on zircon crystals. Zircon has the property that its crystal frame is too tight for lead to escape or penetrate the crystal. For this reason uranium/lead dating can not be disturbed by contaminations, as AiG claims. It has an accuracy of 1%. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

Contamination is not the only issue young-earth creationists have with radiometric dating. Another issue is assuming that we know how much of each element was there to begin with, and whether decay rates have always been constant.

Don't get me wrong: I also believe that all the radiometric data is wrong. But not because of the allegation that all scientific dating methods don't work. They work well and the assumption that all are wrong by a factor of a million is absurd to me.

Please see above.

Problem is just that God pre-aged the minerals. Radiometric dating thus gets the results that God intended, but not the real age.

So you are saying that God is intentionally deceiving us because He does not want us to know the truth?

I think I understood it, but I probably was not clear in my response.

I have studied Astronomy for 2 years, and during that time I got some insight into the scientific method. There is an underlying assumption. But it is not the assumption that "there is no God". On the contrary, some of my professors were Christians (though no Creationists of course). The underlying assumption was "nature is simple". So when you have two theories that explain the same set of data, scientists tend to choose the simpler explanation.

This is the reason why they assume the earth is old because "it looks old". They do not accept the explanation that it looks old only because God wants it to look so.

Just to let you know where I am coming from, I am familiar with the scientific method as well, as a practicing microbiologist with several years of study in the various scientific disciplines.

I am not saying that the assumption was that "there is no God." The initial assumption, actually, was that "the present is the key to the past," i.e. processes in the past can be understood by processes we see happening today. But this is not so much a "simpler" explanation. It is just an unbiblical assumption that was adopted in the late 18th century/early 19th century by people like James Hutton and Charles Lyell, whom (I believe) were both deists and did not accept Biblical revelation. It is ignoring the clear testimony of Scripture.

I think the idea of a simpler explanation has a great deal of merit when talking about present, observable, and testable processes (Occam's Razor). This does not always hold true for past processes, however, where we cannot observe and test. For example, just look at forensics - sometimes the simpler explanation is assumed but it is not the true explanation, because someone made a false assumption somewhere down the line.

I said that we can be glad not to have evidence for some of God's acts, but I am not sure that this was God's intention. I believe he removed the evidence in order to allow for a natural explanation.

There is a clear pattern that can not be ignored. We can only speculate about the reason for that pattern, but it always provides a natural explanation for any phenomenon in nature. At the moment our knowledge about the Big Bang and the evolution of the universe is maybe 20%. But I'm pretty sure that the remaining 80% that scientists might gain in the upcoming centuries will also support perfectly natural explanations.

There must be a reason for this and I believe Genesis and the tree of knowledge gives a hint.

Why would God remove the evidence so that people would give Him less glory rather than more?

I think people devise natural explanations for origins in order to do away with the need for God (or at least to do away with His relevance in their lives).

 

[FallingWaters]

...
Why would God remove the evidence so that people would give Him less glory rather than more?

I agree, and I don't think He has removed evidence or changed evidence, or whatever someone wants to call it.

I think people devise natural explanations for origins in order to do away with the need for God (or at least to do away with His relevance in their lives).

Exactly. The evidence is interpreted by man's heart - which is desperately wicked.

 

[ClearSky]

Yes, oftentimes because results are discarded as invalid if they don't agree with the date that has already been set based on fossil content or position in the geological column.

This would be quite unscientific. Do you just suspect some scientists doing this or do you have real examples?

Contamination is not the only issue young-earth creationists have with radiometric dating. Another issue is assuming that we know how much of each element was there to begin with, and whether decay rates have always been constant.

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

For the uranium lead method for instance, science assumes that the initial lead content is zero because the crystal structure of zircons is too small to contain lead.

However, they do not take in consideration that God wanted the earth to appear old, and thus intentionally placed some lead into the zircons for pre-aging them. At least, this is the only explanation that makes sense.

So you are saying that God is intentionally deceiving us because He does not want us to know the truth?

He is not deceiving us. But he is for sure deceiving the scientists.

I do not know the reason. Maybe there was no other way to create the earth.

I am not saying that the assumption was that "there is no God." The initial assumption, actually, was that "the present is the key to the past," i.e. processes in the past can be understood by processes we see happening today. But this is not so much a "simpler" explanation. It is just an unbiblical assumption that was adopted in the late 18th century/early 19th century by people like James Hutton and Charles Lyell, whom (I believe) were both deists and did not accept Biblical revelation. It is ignoring the clear testimony of Scripture.

Yes, I think we can agree here. But "the present is the key to the past" is a conclusion, not an assumption of science. It basically works this way:

1. Science makes observations and deducts laws of physics.

2. Stable matter can only exist within a small variance of the current laws of physics. Physical constants must not be more different than maybe 2% from their current values to allow stable atoms.

3. Because stable atoms obviously existed in the past, the laws of physics must have been basically the same in the past.

4. Therefore, when we deduct an apparent age of the earth from our observations and the laws of physics, it's its real age.

Of course, the mistake lies in 4) because the supernatural is ignored.

I think the idea of a simpler explanation has a great deal of merit when talking about present, observable, and testable processes (Occam's Razor). This does not always hold true for past processes, however, where we cannot observe and test. For example, just look at forensics - sometimes the simpler explanation is assumed but it is not the true explanation, because someone made a false assumption somewhere down the line.

Well we can observe the past. For instance we observe the past of a star when it's several light years away. Problem is just to decide whether this is the real past or a fake past.

Why would God remove the evidence so that people would give Him less glory rather than more?

Good question. I don't know. Maybe God does not care much about being given glory by humans? Or he wants to test us to see whether we believe science or believe the Bible, just as He tested Adam?

 

[busterdog]

However, they do not take in consideration that God wanted the earth to appear old, and thus intentionally placed some lead into the zircons for pre-aging them. At least, this is the only explanation that makes sense.


He is not deceiving us. But he is for sure deceiving the scientists.

I do not know the reason. Maybe there was no other way to create the earth.


Yes, I think we can agree here. But "the present is the key to the past" is a conclusion, not an assumption of science. It basically works this way:

1. Science makes observations and deducts laws of physics.

2. Stable matter can only exist within a small variance of the current laws of physics. Physical constants must not be more different than maybe 2% from their current values to allow stable atoms.

3. Because stable atoms obviously existed in the past, the laws of physics must have been basically the same in the past.

4. Therefore, when we deduct an apparent age of the earth from our observations and the laws of physics, it's its real age.

Of course, the mistake lies in 4) because the supernatural is ignored.


Well we can observe the past. For instance we observe the past of a star when it's several light years away. Problem is just to decide whether this is the real past or a fake past.


Good question. I don't know. Maybe God does not care much about being given glory by humans? Or he wants to test us to see whether we believe science or believe the Bible, just as He tested Adam?

Let me just say I really appreciate your posts and those of the ladies to whom you are responding. Interesting and well written.

I think I mostly agree with you. This deception idea is a tender spot for me, because it leads to what I think are spurious TE claims. They say frequently that our theology makes God a liar because God would never leave a geological record that "lies" to the modern scientist (though he would lie to all mistaken scientists that preceded us.) There are a few truly frivolous arguments in this forum. That is one of them.

On one hand,

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he [is] not a man, that he should repent.

on the other hand,

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

I am guessing that this leaves us in agreement. I would not use the word deception, personally. Does this sound right?

As for making the earth look old,

Could God make the earth look young?

What would a young earth look like?

How exactly could he construct a planet that would satisfy an evolutionist on this question? I have a hard time imaging that would be possible. Rock must appear to have cooled. Rock must be hard. Dirt must be aggregated in areas sufficient to plant. Planets must have achieved stationary orbits.

To an evolutionist order itself and habitability implies age. I think God is willing to allow someone to go that way if they choose to.

All of the foregoing ignore catastrophes that follow the fall, which also gives an appearance of age to some..