Is God deceiving us?

[MKJ]

I thought this quote from MKJ would make for a good tread of its own.

MKJ wrote

Science begins by making no assumptions about the age of the Earth.

The created world is part of God's revelation, just as Scripture is - it is his natural revelation. If you are saying that God deliberatly left false information in his creation, that is no different than saying he left deliberately false information in Scripture.​

But if this is true, then the Resurrection of Christ was also a sinful act of God, since it could lead someone to believe Christ was had never died. Scientifically speaking, the resurrection would fool any doctor who examined the raised individual. For it would appear that they had no illness and thus were never even sick let alone dead. It would give the doctor a false view of history.

Same would be true with the wine and bread and fish Jesus created. Looking at them after the fact, would lead scientists to believe they came about naturally, and had taken a certain amount of time to develop? They would falsely think the wine matured over a long period of time, and that grains and fish grew to maturity before be cultivated and caught. A false view of history would be inferred from this also. Thus, by the logic above, those acts also would be sinful.

But is this really a good argument? Of course not. God can do anything He wants, and in most cases, He informs us of exactly what He did. The miracles of the wine, fish and bread were written down for our benefit. More to the point, God had the creation account written down, so that no one could misinterpret the evidence.

Thus, if we refuse to believe God's revelation, and are fooled by naturalistic theories, we only have ourselves to blame. That's my take, anyway.

No, it wouldn't be a lie to resurrect Christ, unless he also hid his death. His death however was very publicly witnessed by many, and we have testimony, and what is more, he retained the physical evidence of his wounds, and he was also clearly changed in more undefinable ways.

As far as the wine and fish, we do not have them to investigate, as they have been consumed a long time ago. Are you saying that you think that God made them look older than they really were, had we been able to investigate them? That he would have planted false clues? Ijn any case, it is also unclear what the mechanism for these miracles were? With the loaves and fishes, were their entirely new ones created, or were the ones which were there somehow extended? All of which is to say, we can conclude very little from speaking about those items without having them. And they were clearly presented as miraculously created as well.

But you are really missing the point of what I said, which is the idea of the natural world as a self-revelation of God. God remember, is complete in himself. Everything in creation comes from him, he created it and continues to move it and sustain it. God is all truth. That creation is in accordance with his nature, everything about it is a reflection of God's truth and God's nature. It is through this creation that we can know truth at all, that we are here to know it. It is through this self-revelation of nature and our own selves that we can first see and know God. This is why pagans with no special revelation can know God.

Special revelation is what one might call a miraculous revelation - God is telling us about himself through non-natural means, perhaps telling us things that we could not know from observing nature or through reason.

These two revelations cannot contradict each other, any more than two parts of Scripture cannot contradict each other. It may be that we misunderstand, or the subject is a complex or many layered one, but God cannot call God a liar.

This is why the idea that God could purposefully make it appear that creation is old when it is not is a non-starter, and in fact a repugnant heresy.

 

[Calminian]

No, it wouldn't be a lie to resurrect Christ, unless he also hid his death. His death however was very publicly witnessed by many, and we have testimony, and what is more, he retained the physical evidence of his wounds, and he was also clearly changed in more undefinable ways.

We also have written testimony in Genesis that God created the world in 6 days. Now that testimony contradicts modern ideas about origins, but the testimonies of the resurrection contradicts modern ideas about biology, based on the observable evidence.

So why isn't this also a lie? Why do you prefer the resurrection testimony over science, yet prefer science over the creation testimony?

As far as the wine and fish, we do not have them to investigate, as they have been consumed a long time ago. Are you saying that you think that God made them look older than they really were, had we been able to investigate them? That he would have planted false clues?

No, but I believe they were real wine, fish and bread, and those take time to come about. Those looking at them would have thought, "oh, here's some wine fish and bread." They would have believed they had a history in accordance with observable data of how wine fish and bread come about. So was God deceiving them?

Ijn any case, it is also unclear what the mechanism for these miracles were? With the loaves and fishes, were their entirely new ones created, or were the ones which were there somehow extended? All of which is to say, we can conclude very little from speaking about those items without having them. And they were clearly presented as miraculously created as well.

Well that's just the thing. God spoke the universe into existence. Peter said he created the earth out of water. That's far more miraculous than making wine from water.

But you are really missing the point of what I said, which is the idea of the natural world as a self-revelation of God. God remember, is complete in himself. Everything in creation comes from him, he created it and continues to move it and sustain it. God is all truth. That creation is in accordance with his nature, everything about it is a reflection of God's truth and God's nature. It is through this creation that we can know truth at all, that we are here to know it. It is through this self-revelation of nature and our own selves that we can first see and know God. This is why pagans with no special revelation can know God.

But it would seem you and the pagans are in the same boat. They don't know the special revelation, and you don't believe it. What's the difference?

These two revelations cannot contradict each other, any more than two parts of Scripture cannot contradict each other. It may be that we misunderstand, or the subject is a complex or many layered one, but God cannot call God a liar.

Then, by your logic, that means the wine Christ created was made naturally, over time. For if what you say is true, that science and the Bible can never contradict one another, then there is a perfectly good natural explanation for the existence of that wine back at the Cana wedding. There were wineries in the area. It looked like wine, tasted like wine. In fact, a witness said it was good wine!

Here's what would happen if you were transported back to look at that miraculous wine. You'd examine it and determine it was real. Then you examine the time it would normally take for the properties of that wine to come about. You say, "science tells me this took x amount of time." Then someone might tell you, "Hey this just happened. Christ turned it to wine instantly from water." You'd scratch your head. "Hmmm. I believe in Christ, but I also believe in science. I know! It must have happened x amount of time ago, and Christ must have done it back then!"

You see the problem with your logic? You've basically claimed that belief in miracles is heresy—repugnant heresy in fact. For miracles are by very nature contrary to science (be it by addition or violation). They will confound and fool the stubborn scientific mind. But the deceived who rejects the revelation, is self deceived. You'll find no recourse with God.

 

[SkyWriting]

But you are really missing the point of what I said, which is the idea of the natural world as a self-revelation of God. God remember, is complete in himself. Everything in creation comes from him, he created it and continues to move it and sustain it.

Not exactly.
Adam was banished from Creation and guards placed at the gate.
This earth's god, is Satan. This earth will be cast into the pit with him.
God's only effect on this world is through His Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit did not emanate from the earth. It was sent here.

John 3:31 The one who comes from above is above all;
the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth,
and speaks as one from the earth. ..


Revelation 17:5 The name written on her forehead was a mystery ...
... On her forehead a cryptic name was written: BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE VILE THINGS OF THE EARTH.

Isaiah 33:9 The land dries up and wastes away, Lebanon is ashamed ...
... The earth mourns and languishes: Lebanon is ashamed and hewn down: Sharon is ...

 

[pyramid33]

God certainly sends strong delusion upon the wicked.

 

[mark kennedy]

As far as the wine and fish, we do not have them to investigate, as they have been consumed a long time ago. Are you saying that you think that God made them look older than they really were, had we been able to investigate them? That he would have planted false clues? Ijn any case, it is also unclear what the mechanism for these miracles were? With the loaves and fishes, were their entirely new ones created, or were the ones which were there somehow extended? All of which is to say, we can conclude very little from speaking about those items without having them. And they were clearly presented as miraculously created as well...

...This is why the idea that God could purposefully make it appear that creation is old when it is not is a non-starter, and in fact a repugnant heresy.

I see the problem here, your mistaking your misunderstanding for a deliberate deception. All we know about the water turned to wine is that it was better then the wine the host had previously provided.

God doesn't make creation look old or young, God made the heavens and the earth and all the Scriptures say about when is that it was 'In the beginning'. Creation week is another matter, human lineage is explicitly tied to the lineage from Adam along with genealogies that tie the Old Testament witness to a specific detailed history. It's necessarily true or necessarily false it cannot be both. The age of the earth is irrelevant since the Scriptures are silent on when the heavens and the earth were created, it only says that it was, 'In the beginning'. You could conclude that creation week immediately followed the creation of the heavens and the earth or you could conclude that it was billions of years previously. Neither conclusion is confirmed or denied by the Scriptures. The point your trying to make here is moot.

Misrepresenting what the Scriptures say is a deception or a misconception, the Scriptures themselves are explicit in their claims to history. If you want to discuss how human lineage is explicitly tied to a definitive time line I would be delighted to defend the legitimacy of that claim based on Scripture and/or science at any length. However, with regards to the age of the heavens and the earth the Scriptures are silent.

You see the problem with your logic? You've basically claimed that belief in miracles is heresy—repugnant heresy in fact. For miracles are by very nature contrary to science (be it by addition or violation). They will confound and fool the stubborn scientific mind. But the deceived who rejects the revelation, is self deceived. You'll find no recourse with God.

I'd give MJK the benefit of a doubt here before I jumped to conclusions.

 

[MKJ]

I see the problem here, your mistaking your misunderstanding for a deliberate deception. All we know about the water turned to wine is that it was better then the wine the host had previously provided.

That was the point of my original comment, which was not put in any context in the OP. THe person I was replying to had said that evidence of an older universe - things like sedimentary layers, the fact that we can see things that happened millions of light years away, and so on - was there because God chose for some reason to put it there, even though those things never happened.

 

[MKJ]

We also have written testimony in Genesis that God created the world in 6 days. Now that testimony contradicts modern ideas about origins, but the testimonies of the resurrection contradicts modern ideas about biology, based on the observable evidence.

So why isn't this also a lie? Why do you prefer the resurrection testimony over science, yet prefer science over the creation testimony?

Not at all, I would say that they aren't contradictory.

No, but I believe they were real wine, fish and bread, and those take time to come about. Those looking at them would have thought, "oh, here's some wine fish and bread." They would have believed they had a history in accordance with observable data of how wine fish and bread come about. So was God deceiving them?

If we looked at those fish at a cellular level, what would it tell us? THat the fish had been alive? Or not? Or they were in fact identical to the other fish? I would suggest that they would not tell us anything that wasn't in fact true.

Well that's just the thing. God spoke the universe into existence. Peter said he created the earth out of water. That's far more miraculous than making wine from water.

That isn't really the point - I have no problem with miracles, and would say that both are miraculous events.

But it would seem you and the pagans are in the same boat. They don't know the special revelation, and you don't believe it. What's the difference?

That's rude, and untrue.

Then, by your logic, that means the wine Christ created was made naturally, over time. For if what you say is true, that science and the Bible can never contradict one another, then there is a perfectly good natural explanation for the existence of that wine back at the Cana wedding. There were wineries in the area. It looked like wine, tasted like wine. In fact, a witness said it was good wine!

No, not at all, I think that it was created miraculously, so that is what it would show if we could investigate it. Noticing that there are wineries in the area doesn't show anything.

Here's what would happen if you were transported back to look at that miraculous wine. You'd examine it and determine it was real. Then you examine the time it would normally take for the properties of that wine to come about. You say, "science tells me this took x amount of time." Then someone might tell you, "Hey this just happened. Christ turned it to wine instantly from water." You'd scratch your head. "Hmmm. I believe in Christ, but I also believe in science. I know! It must have happened x amount of time ago, and Christ must have done it back then!"

If you think that is how science looks at things to discover where they came from, I see why you are confused about what I am trying to say.

You see the problem with your logic? You've basically claimed that belief in miracles is heresy—repugnant heresy in fact. For miracles are by very nature contrary to science (be it by addition or violation). They will confound and fool the stubborn scientific mind. But the deceived who rejects the revelation, is self deceived. You'll find no recourse with God.

No, miracles are not contradictory to science, they do not act according to what we normally expect in nature, which is a rather different thing.

A scientific investigation of a miracle, if it were possible to conclude anything, would show that to be the case, not contradict it.

 

[mark kennedy]

That was the point of my original comment, which was not put in any context in the OP. THe person I was replying to had said that evidence of an older universe - things like sedimentary layers, the fact that we can see things that happened millions of light years away, and so on - was there because God chose for some reason to put it there, even though those things never happened.

I"ve seen that a few times, it's actually pointless hyperbole. I find myself dumbfounded by Creationists who spend so much time on the age of the earth and cosmology. There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures indicating the age of the earth. How long there has been life on this earth is another matter.

A scientific investigation of a miracle, if it were possible to conclude anything, would show that to be the case, not contradict it.

That would depend on whether or not you would consider a miracle a naturally occurring phenomenon. Science is better described as natural science, it has focused on an inductive approach to investigating natural phenomenon since the Scientific Revolution. I don't think you could conclusively determine a miracle scientifically, depending on which discipline were involved.

 

[Smidlee]

That was the point of my original comment, which was not put in any context in the OP. THe person I was replying to had said that evidence of an older universe - things like sedimentary layers, the fact that we can see things that happened millions of light years away, and so on - was there because God chose for some reason to put it there, even though those things never happened.

There are serious problems with the old universe like the horizon problem (same as YEC starlight problem). To solve this problem "some guys" have to support inflation which is a supernatural event that lasted for 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second (give a second or two) that happen .000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second after Big Bang. (Then there's the supernatural dark energy and dark matter.) Are you suggesting if these "some guys" are wrong about the age of the universe then God have deceived us? Do you support the idea that "space" expanded faster than the speed of light yet think God can't do the same with time? ( Maybe man is not the first being to invent the Fast Forward button)

If we are deceived it's not God that behind the deception.

 

[gluadys]

I"ve seen that a few times, it's actually pointless hyperbole. I find myself dumbfounded by Creationists who spend so much time on the age of the earth and cosmology. There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures indicating the age of the earth. How long there has been life on this earth is another matter.

Well, the age of the earth has been measured at about 4.7 billion years. Life has been on earth about 3.8 billion years. Multicellular life about 0.7 billion years and human life about 0.002 billion years (genus Homo). H. sapiens takes us to 0.0002 billion years. These are minimum times given first appearance in the fossil record which is usually later than first appearance as a living species.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, the age of the earth has been measured at about 4.7 billion years.

So what?

Life has been on earth about 3.8 billion years.

Actually it began 6,000 years ago when God created it.

Multicellular life about 0.7 billion years

Idle speculation.

and human life about 0.002 billion years (genus Homo).

Human life began with the creation of Adam

H. sapiens takes us to 0.0002 billion years. These are minimum times given first appearance in the fossil record which is usually later than first appearance as a living species.

Yea about that, why are there no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

 

[MKJ]

I"ve seen that a few times, it's actually pointless hyperbole. I find myself dumbfounded by Creationists who spend so much time on the age of the earth and cosmology. There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures indicating the age o

ell, it is the same problem. Evidence of life which they think is impossible is seen as 'planted" - fossils for example. There are serious theological problems if god is going around planting evidence of things that never happened.

That would depend on whether or not you would consider a miracle a naturally occurring phenomenon. Science is better described as natural science, it has focused on an inductive approach to investigating natural phenomenon since the Scientific Revolution. I don't think you could conclusively determine a miracle scientifically, depending on which discipline were involved.

No, I don't think you likely could either, because you could never repeat it. But you might be able to disprove one.

But the kind of thing I am talking about is something like this: say God created an item right now, out of nothing, in my living room. A sort an item that normally would have been made by natural processes a hundred thousand year ago, so we would expect any dating technology, say some sort of radiation based technique, to show that date. But if it as really created from nothing today, would the dating technology show that? Would God give it other false evidences of age?

I think no. Of course, the thing with miracles are that they are public - the whole point is that people should see them happen miraculously. So if it is a secret miracle without witnesses, that puts rather a different complexion on it. Some people have also pointed out that if you look at the sorts of miracles we see in Scripture or the history of the Church, rather than being a perversion of nature, they tend to reflect a perfection of or healing of fallen nature.

 

[MKJ]

Yea about that, why are there no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

You mean in their own fossil record? There are some I think, but they are quite rare, so they don't really have enough to build up a picture of their development. Jungles aren't great for preserving fossils.

 

[MKJ]

(Then there's the supernatural dark energy and dark matter.)

By definition, energy and matter aren't supernatural. Now, I think that defining the material is much more difficult than some materialists want to believe, but that doesn't really make much difference here. Something that can't be pinned down is not the same as something immaterial. Energy and matter are both stuff.

Are you suggesting if these "some guys" are wrong about the age of the universe then God have deceived us?

Not at all. I am saying that if God left false cues, then he is a deceiving God, and that is impossible.

Do you support the idea that "space" expanded faster than the speed of light yet think God can't do the same with time? ( Maybe man is not the first being to invent the Fast Forward button)

All you are showing here is that you don't understand time. If time speeds up, it is still the same amount of time going by. God could, I suppose, speed up time in some sense so that a billion years go by in the blink of an eye (whose eye, one wonders) but it would still be a billion years.

Time is relative, it isn't something that has a fixed value in the way you seem to be imagining. Perhaps you would be less worried about what you imagine are Biblical timelines if you understood this.

If we are deceived it's not God that behind the deception.

If you insist on missing the point, I am not really interested in discussing it with you. We were discussing a God who purposefully leaves false evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

ell, it is the same problem. Evidence of life which they think is impossible is seen as 'planted" - fossils for example. There are serious theological problems if god is going around planting evidence of things that never happened.

No one in their right mind seriously thinks that. Once all the major homined fossils were brought together for an exhibit, Mary Leaky complained that some creationist could roll a bomb in there and destroy them. I don't think that makes any more sense then God going around fraudulently planting fossils.

No, I don't think you likely could either, because you could never repeat it. But you might be able to disprove one.

The Catholics have some interesting rules about that, you can't conclude a miracle until all the naturalistic explanations are exhausted. Exorcisms for example are pretty rare, except maybe in Africa, for that reason. The whole problem with approaching a miracle with science because you would have to assume a miracle is a possibility. Given the epistemology it seems unlikely.

I get what your saying though, you could show up charlatans or maybe clear up misconceptions using empirical methodologies.

But the kind of thing I am talking about is something like this: say God created an item right now, out of nothing, in my living room. A sort an item that normally would have been made by natural processes a hundred thousand year ago, so we would expect any dating technology, say some sort of radiation based technique, to show that date. But if it as really created from nothing today, would the dating technology show that? Would God give it other false evidences of age?

I think it's important to understand that God rested from the work of creation, at least the creation of the natural world. Now God has since created Israel and makes us new creatures in Christ, I doubt you'll get something isolated that you can test in a lab for that. According to most theologians the last day of creation, the Sabbath rest, continues at least until the return of Christ.

Still, prophets challenged God to do things only God can do. I really don't know what kind of manifestation would be suitable for empirical testing but I think such a thing is highly unlikely.

I think no. Of course, the thing with miracles are that they are public - the whole point is that people should see them happen miraculously. So if it is a secret miracle without witnesses, that puts rather a different complexion on it. Some people have also pointed out that if you look at the sorts of miracles we see in Scripture or the history of the Church, rather than being a perversion of nature, they tend to reflect a perfection of or healing of fallen nature.

We think of miracles as supernatural but for God is the most natural thing in the world. C.S. Lewis once talked with JRR Tolken about myths and JRR Tolken said he wrote myths and the Bible is a myth, the only difference being that the Bible is true. I think what he was saying is that it's mythic in it's scope but never the less happened.

I'm big on evidential apologetics, positive evidence for the Scriptures is one of my favorite studies. The single most important proof for the miracles of the Scriptures is the living witness attached to it, the Hebrew and Christian communities respectively.

There was this woman at a church I attended for a while, the doctors all said she should abort because a defect was going to deform her horribly. When she was born her only issues were a cleft pallet and web toes. The doctor, as the story goes, when she was born started saying 'She's perfect!'. The church prayed for that baby all the time, was that a miracle. I don't know but God does wonderful things, I don't need a scientist to prove that to me empirically.

You mean in their own fossil record? There are some I think, but they are quite rare, so they don't really have enough to build up a picture of their development. Jungles aren't great for preserving fossils.

They inhabit the savannahs of Africa, not a place you would find fossils very much. The extent of the fossil evidence for Chimpanzee ancestors is three maybe four teeth found in the Rift Valley, that's it. The reason I asked the question is because I believe Chimpanzee fossils are being passed off as human ancestors, the Taung Child for instance. It's small, even for a Chimpanzee child and it looks a lot more like a Chimpanzee the a human. Lucy is another one and there are a few others, I think the way fossils out of Africa are handled is far less then objective, every time an ape fossil is dug up it's automatically celebrated as one of our ancestors.

Just something to think about.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Smidlee]

By definition, energy and matter aren't supernatural. Now, I think that defining the material is much more difficult than some materialists want to believe, but that doesn't really make much difference here. Something that can't be pinned down is not the same as something immaterial. Energy and matter are both stuff.

Inflation is a supernatural event.

Not at all. I am saying that if God left false cues, then he is a deceiving God, and that is impossible.

Exactly since it's written in scriptures He spoke this universe into existence. Man creates his universe (World of Warcraft) with age. No doubt man will get better at creating his virtual universals maybe in close to those found in Sci-Fi.

All you are showing here is that you don't understand time. If time speeds up, it is still the same amount of time going by. God could, I suppose, speed up time in some sense so that a billion years go by in the blink of an eye (whose eye, one wonders) but it would still be a billion years.

Time is something we have to relate to but God doesn't. You are still trying to understand creation from our end which involves "time" but it's made clear in scriptures it happen on God's end which time doesn't exist.

Time is relative, it isn't something that has a fixed value in the way you seem to be imagining. Perhaps you would be less worried about what you imagine are Biblical timelines if you understood this.




If you insist on missing the point, I am not really interested in discussing it with you. We were discussing a God who purposefully leaves false evidence.

"Some guys" believe time is the 4th dimension while for all we know it only something we relate to. (if spacetime exist they have to believe in 11 dimensions just to get the math to work since by definition nothing can move in spacetime) But God is outside of time so it doesn't apply to Him as it does to us. He is the creator of time itself. (again these "some guys" have no problem with space stretching faster than the speed of light which we also use to mark time. Inflation itself would cause the universe to appear older than it really is)

 

[gluadys]

So what?



Actually it began 6,000 years ago when God created it.

If you are going to accept an old age for the earth, is it not contradictory to deny the history that occurred between the creation of the earth and 6,000 years ago? Are you seriously suggesting that the earth was nothing but a bit of rock orbiting the sun until the last 0.000006% of its history?

Why do fossils show the age they do if that is the case?


And if you reject the age of the fossils, why accept an old age for the earth?

Idle speculation.

The fossils are real.

Human life began with the creation of Adam

I don't quarrel with that, but depending on how you define "human" (genus/species) that is 200,000 to 2 million years ago.

Yea about that, why are there no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

Chimpanzee ancestors lived in jungles which are notoriously poor at preserving remains for fossilization. We may get lucky and find a few some day.

 

[SkyWriting]

If you are going to accept an old age for the earth, is it not contradictory to deny the history that occurred between the creation of the earth and 6,000 years ago? Are you seriously suggesting that the earth was nothing but a bit of rock orbiting the sun until the last 0.000006% of its history?

Nobody really knows what happened during the ride of Paul Revere. Or exactly why the space shuttle exploded on re-entry. Anything 6000 years or more is guesswork, with a handful of facts to work with.

 

[gluadys]

Nobody really knows what happened during the ride of Paul Revere. Or exactly why the space shuttle exploded on re-entry. Anything 6000 years or more is guesswork, with a handful of facts to work with.

I know you don't believe any forensic study of the past is possible. But if that were true it would be impossible to investigate anything that happened in the past, such as the cause of a fire which burned down a building (important for insurance companies) and the cause of an unexplained death (was it accident, suicide, murder?)

Exploring the more distant past means we have fewer facts to go on, but as long as there is some undisturbed evidence, a forensic investigation is possible and it is possible to say that some conclusions are more probable than others.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you are going to accept an old age for the earth, is it not contradictory to deny the history that occurred between the creation of the earth and 6,000 years ago?

I said the age of the earth is irrelevant, I didn't say it couldn't have happened 6,000 years ago. The initial creation of the heavens and the earth could have been seconds before creation week started or billions of years. The Scriptures are silent on the time of that event.

Are you seriously suggesting that the earth was nothing but a bit of rock orbiting the sun until the last 0.000006% of its history?

Yes

Why do fossils show the age they do if that is the case?

The dirt and rock their encased in could be that old.

And if you reject the age of the fossils, why accept an old age for the earth?

The dating of the soils and strata are based on ratios of elements that decay to ones that don't, it's little more then a ratio to me. With fossils what interests me is the anatomy and physiology it had while it was alive. I have found very little that was compelling, much less convincing from geology in that regards.

The fossils are real.

Sure they are, there is just no evidence that they evolved from or into anything else.

I don't quarrel with that, but depending on how you define "human" (genus/species) that is 200,000 to 2 million years ago.

Sounds like a standard estimate.

Chimpanzee ancestors lived in jungles which are notoriously poor at preserving remains for fossilization. We may get lucky and find a few some day.

Actually they live in the savannas and doesn't it seem a little strange that they never migrated in 2-5 mya when we have spanned the globe? At any rate, it is a poor area for fossilization but our supposed ancestors would have lived right in that area for million of years since that's where you'll find most of the homined fossils.

That's not even the most important thing, what really matters is how many of the Homo habilis fossils look like big Chimpanzees. In fact, several of them have small cranial capacities even for modern Chimps.