I would expect you to object to that assertion of a week ago, and with good reason, but not with proof irrefutable. You see it is the same problem regarding painting God as a Trickster, which He is not, not even in the minutest aspect. The laws of the Universe He has created are not immutable to God The Creator. However, we have good reason to believe that The God Whose name is I AM is the origin of the very laws of Physics and Chemistry we utilize. Until you can show me an irrefutable proof that the same laws we use have changed in the last 6000 years, I will continue to make the broad assumption that they do not change so easily and are 'universal' across spacetime.
If we want to debate the Darwinist theory of evolution of species then I would immediately go to the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion. I have yet to hear any Darwinist explain how that occurred in the reference frame of Darwin's theory. The closest anyone has come is the notion of punctuated equilibrium. I'm not on this thread to poke holes in Darwinism. I'm posting in order to abjure the notion that God, my God, is a Trickster. YEC, to my reasoning, makes God out to be a trickster when all is filtered out. I will not agree to that, even on an oblique Internet chat thread.
I saw that in several of your posts you stated that 'God would have to be a trickster' [for the earth to be less than billions of years old].
An alternative explanation is that one could have been 'tricked' by believing unproven presuppositions. E.g., why would one expect the radioactive decay rates to have remained constant? Particularly given that most processes we observe in nature are exponential.
Also, how do we know the radioactive heavy elements always existed on earth? E.g., God tells us that there was a catastrophic event that occurred thousands of years ago where the earth was ripped up (all the fountains of the deep were opened up), and the entire surface was covered with water for nearly a year. What if one of the outcomes of the shear forces from this event created the radioactive elements (a theory from Walter Brown)?
Why treat the radioactive decay rates as something sacrosanct (and not being subject to change), but at the same time ignore other evidence that point to a younger than billions of year old earth: the existence of comets (dirty snowballs that orbit the Sun); the salinity of the ocean (given the rates of salt that flows into the ocean minus that which is removed); the position of the moon (given that it recedes from the Earth every year); the existence of the Earth Magnetic field (even though we know it is declining); the existence of helium in the atmosphere (given the escape and generation rates); etc.
I understand that the existence of comets are waved away by the claim that there is a mythological Oort Cloud that kicks comets into the Sun's orbit every so often. And the Earth Magnetic field exists because there is a perpetual motion dynamo machine in the core of the Earth which -- when the field declines enough - it will just reverse at full strength, and start all over again...
God is not tricking us, we trick ourselves.