The fact that the seam is not explained by the deposition of biological matter is not evidence that the world was created by God 10,000 years ago. The better explanation is that coal and oil are not biological in origin. But if you would rather believe that people riding around on camels in the desert 9,900 years ago had a better source of information, that is your right.
I find it hard to believe that God chose to talk to a handful of people 9,900 years ago, yet has not talked to anyone else since, except Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. I also don't believe that God is going to lie to us all by creating fossils that look like they are older than 10,000 years old, and stars that are over 10,000 light years distant, just to fool us.
I just don't understand how the theory of evolution calls into question the existence of God. One can believe in both. Perhaps God has left us all the clues to understand who were are and where we came from as part of the path that we are to follow. That he wants us to realize that we are only part of the story, not the end. Remember He created the universe, no? The laws that govern it are his, no? So how does the theory of us evolving from a single cell organism into a human diminish God, or his "gifts"? It doesn't.
There you go again.
It wouldn't fit in with His character to do that but He can't help it if humans misinterpret the data they find.
Adam was created as a grown man, with the appearance of age. The day he was created, how old would you say he was, just by looking at him? You could say (estimate here for the sake of argument) *30 years old* and you would be right, in a way. If you said *one day*, you would also be right but according to all appearnces, you would be wrong. So which one is right? Both are. But God didn't do it with the intend to deceive, He did it out of practicality. He couldn't have started with a sperm and egg and left it lying on the ground.
"The better explanation is that coal and oil are not biological in origin."
While petrogenesis of oil is still argued, the origen of coal is not - especially since the fossils in it are obvious plants.
I think - I'm not sure about this statement - that many of the trees around Mount St. Helens experiences rapid coalification and even petrification.