Again, I shall resist the urge to go into a discussion of geometric physics and focus instead on one point, your diagnosis:
Such hypotheses can neither be evidenced nor falsified. If God created an old-looking universe it would also be logical, intelligible and deceptive.
Most commonly around here, the scientist-correspondents who are atheist reject the Gosse Omphalos hypothesis because it would make deception a property of God which they aver is an insult. I find this strange since on the one hand atheists don't believe He exists and other the other, they appeal to an absolute moral code (which can't exist without God) to use the pejorative, "insult".
Very good analysis, straight forward and RARE, to me.. Rare in the sense I have never had anyone before that would response to the concept(my concepts) as legitimate before.. Not that I even KNOW anyone that could even approach this subject.. Can't say that tomorrow, LoL.. Thanks, I really mean that..
Deceptive?.. Well actually a painting IS deceptive in a sense.. it fools your eye into a three dimensional reality when its a two dimensional representation of tricky tricks.. Thats what a painting "IS".. Tricks to fool the eye.. I know I paint.. Who would say we humans are the looser because of artistic talent.?.. By the same token mathematics can fool the brain into thinking everything could be conceivably quantified, measured, or reduced to an algorithm.. The very makeup of the human eye is deception.. Our eyes deceive us into seeing.. There many bandwidths/ frequency's of light but we can only see a few of them.. i.e there is more goin on than we can see.. is that deception?..
Interesting questions you brought.. but I still feel that I didn't make my point.. if the point(s) is/are even makable.. Its a "heady" business looking for the true makeup God's Universe from a frogs well.. Arrogant gremlins bite at your heels, and Pedantic gargoyles speak insults, and Sneaky Philosophical Genius's pee in your intellectual pool.. I'm only talking about what goes on in my WELL.. Hopefully your well is not so dangerous.. d;-)
Lets reference the miracle of turning water into wine. When Jesus did it we can conclude that it was more or less an instantaneous miracle. If we placed it on the time line I'd say that it probably took no more than a millisecond. Now if man were to go about the process of turning water into wine it would be a long process on the time line. First of all one would need grape seeds. Let us assume for a moment that through genetic engineering man were able to create a grape seed from a mixture of inorganic chemicals, he would still need to take the time to plant it. He could then add the water necessary to make the vine grow. This would probably take about 2 years before wine quality grapes could be produced. So man would have to add water to the seeds for about 2 years before he got a crop of grapes. He would then have to pick the grapes and crush them and add the necessary bacterium (which he would also have to create in his laboratory). Then he would have to let the mixture sit for a couple of years in order for all the necessary chemical changes to take place to make the mixture into a fine wine (The Bible says that the wine was premium -- probably the finest wine ever produced). So we are looking at a period of 5 years of time which would be necessary to "naturally" turn water into wine.
But Jesus did the whole operation in a millisecond. When the result was completed, Jesus presented the wedding party with a cistern filled with wine that, by all appearances, was at least 5 if not 10 years in the making.
If Christ could do all that in a mere millisecond, then just think of what wonders God could create if he had SIX DAYS!