Is this an intellectual satisfying solution to the creation-evolution debate?

Question

Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot by Philip Henry Gosse (1857) or the Prochronic Theory of Creation or Creation with the Appearance of Pre-existence.
If god/God created the earth 6,000 years ago according to calculations from the bible, s/he/it created the earth and all things with the appearance of pre-existence, with illusory strata, illusory fossils, illusory ages of living things, etc. Adam & Eve were created AS IF they were 18 years old (age of consent) instead of 0 day old. So all other things –living and nonliving – were created AS IF they were 4.5 billion years old or less depending on the time at which they were supposed to have appeared in earth’s illusory geological history. The products of creation must bear traces of previous stages, even if those stages had no existence in real time. They were created with an illusory history.

When scientists test the ages of rocks they will therefore get millions and billions of years for their ages, when they were only created 6,000 years ago. The dinosaurs never really existed, but god/God put their fossils in the earth to give an illusory evolutionary history of living things. If creation really happened, then the history of life is a BIG LIE.

Answer 1

I've heard it before. I believe it was called the "Adam had a belly-button" theory. No, it doesn't make much sense and it doesn't satisfy very many people.

Answer 2

The answer to this question is another question:
Why?
What reason would God have to do this?
Regardless of the "illusory history" people would choose to either believe or not, as they do now. In other words, if there was no illusory history and there were no fossils, and the oldest piece of Earth was only 6,000 years old people would still choose to agree or disagree with the Creation Hypothesis. Therefore making the point of illusory history as a method of determining one's faith in god, moot.

Answer 3

Then Michelangelo, Da Vinci, movie directors, songwriters, storytellers, and all other artists of all kinds are liars, too, for infusing details that don't actually exist outside of their creations.

As far as being intellectually satisfying, how does it not make sense? Is there any other way to define the origin of the universe than a "supernatural event?" Laws of physics and thermodynamics are clear, you don't get something from nothing in nature, so a natural origin of the universe is ruled out, therefore, it must have been supernatural.

I prefer to believe that a being that cared enough to create the nuanced and finely tuned machine we call the universe also cared enough to leave a manual behind to teach humanity how to get along with each other. That is why I prefer to call this being "God."

Answer 4

This is not satisfying AT ALL... What kind of a God would try to fool us all? Such a God would hardly be worthy of our worship. No the truth is simply that science is slowly unlocking the secrets of our existence and if that conflicts with your religious beliefs then you are an idiot. Find a way to resolve the conflict without dismissing science, or you will always be thought an idiot by those who know.

Answer 5

In other words, it was magic? Oh sorry, xtians prefer the word Miracle. Whatever. Douche. To answer the question, no, its not intellectually satisfying, it appears to involve no thought at all, just the usual "god did it" explanation.

Not to mention, this just talks about creation, not evolution. And since xtians don't seem to realize it, evolution has nothing to do with the creation myth/truth (whatever). Attaching creation to evolution shows that one knows nothing about what evolution is. The theory of evolution makes no claims about creation, none.

Answer 6

i will purely talk to whilst i used to be a believer. It exchange into actually intimated that there exchange into lively rivalry in technology between super communities of scientists who believed evolutionary thought and vast communities who did no longer. Come to make certain that doesn't look the case, that the medical consensus is obvious, and the version lies been people who're fundamentalist or evangelical believers and people who are not, and there are a great many believers who definitely settle for evolution. this is quite uncommon in my journey to bump into all people who actively denies evolution and is not any longer a non secular believer. Is that unfair to assert, Christians? . . EDIT: @Esther et al: you spot, honey, the element is that technology *does not* in basic terms say despite it needs. technology observes nature, bases hypothesis on those observations, makes testable predictions in line with that hypothesis, exams, observes some extra, makes extra predictions, exams and observers some extra, and whilst the hypothesis is rigorous sufficient to stand up to attempting out, this is going to become thought. . that isn't purely the comparable as "asserting despite it chooses". That describes faith, your approach of determining 'actuality'. and because you supply us permission to call you despite names we want, i'm going to declare you to be a... by no ability strategies, that is petty, and an insult to those who are not such as you, does no longer it, honey? .

Answer 7

Titus 1:2 says God can't lie

Answer 8

This is really no different than Last Thursdayism: the belief that everything was created last Thursday complete with all our memories, etc. So it is complete garbage.

Answer 9

yeah, and its called evolution.