Well perhaps there's your problem.
Since you guys are such "experts" on showing God to be a deceiver, and my Embedded Age explanation to be wrong, I thought this little challenge would be a snap for you to answer.
Apparently you guys aren't half the "experts" you think you are.
Anyone can simply say my Embedded Age is wrong because that would make God a deceiver; but proving it is something else though --- isn't it?
No it's quite easy, here's the proof:
According to you the Earth came into being 6000 years ago and God provided documentation to that effect. However there is sufficient evidence that the Earth has much more than 6000 years' worth of age. Regardless of whether you claim that God created the Earth with the appearance of age or with "age embedded" (whatever that might mean), it doesn't escape the fact that the documentation doesn't agree with the physical evidence (being the creation itself). Even a being of limited intelligence, let alone an omniscient one, would realize the problem that this would cause. So what are the options? (1) God is stupid. (2) God is deceptive -- ie God knows that there is a contradiction but doesn't care. (3) The documentation (or at least the way you're interpreting it) is incorrect. (4) There really isn't a contradiction.
(1) and (2) also contradict the documentation; hence we can't accept them as a way out of our problem. You want (4) so that you can avoid (3) but your attempt at explaining (4) requires that an omniscient being, who obviously knew the potential confusion caused by contradictory documentation and evidence, didn't think to include the explanation in the documentation. This in turn implies that either God didn't think about it too much, bringing us back to (1) and thus contradicting omniscience, or deliberately left it out. Deliberately leaving out an explanation that is critical to people* avoiding making a terrible mistake... well, what would you call it? I'd call it deceptive, which again contradicts the documentation.
The only way out of the continual contradictions is (3).
BTW, that's actually the point. When people say that God is deceptive, they're trying to show the fallacy in your YEC/EAC beliefs, not that God is actually deceptive. It's called a reductio ad absurdum (or proof by contradiction): accepting proposition X leads to a contradiction or obviously false statement, ergo X is false. Please try to understand this. It's not that hard.
Now, all that said... if this challenge is somehow supposed to demonstrate a flaw in this reasoning, perhaps you could just answer my fairly reasonable request for clarification of your question (ie does "without being wrong" imply that you did not, in fact, have motive to deceive when you created the man?). It's your challenge, surely you know the premises involved.
*AFAICT, "people" means potentially anyone since the end of the 18th century, minus you and your pastor and, presumably, a handful of others at your church.
