If we are using the wine as our analogy for Earth then we would ask what planet the Earth is being copied from. This planet would have to be 4.5 billion years old itself in order to copy the ratios of isotopes in rocks used to date the Earth and also things like meteor impact craters that are millions of years old. This doesn’t even get into the fossils God would have to put in the Earth below all of those rock layers with isotope ratios consistent with millions of years of decay.
It all comes down to what Scripture says, and if we trust it or not. I don’t think Scripture teaches this, though I do trust it. If one did trust Scripture and think it was young, perhaps this would be an example of a creative mechanism that would make sense of the “appearance” of age with out rendering God desceptive, at least in part. The universe and starts are harder to explain this way.
The specifics of geology pose some seriously problems, at least in my eyes. If it is said that radiometric dating is wrong because it is measuring rock that was created mature then we have to conclude that all of the geology below these rocks is also part of the initial creation. This would include nearly all of the fossil bearing strata on Earth. This would require God to create the Earth with fossils already in the ground.
Whether that is deceptive or not . . . I will leave that to the theologians.
This a thought experiment for which only God has the definitive answer. For there to be a deceiver in the conclusion… we need to know how broadly the term “wine” could have veen used… vs. what was actually produced. And we have neither information!
The wedding at Cana is a red herring, which reminds me, so are the loaves and fishes. Neither of these miracles has left any evidence we can examine. It’s the creation of the world 6000 years ago you should be talking about. That’s the one that unavoidably involves deception.
5 posts were split to a new topic: R_speir’s theory of backwards in time creation