The Most Important Intro You’ll Ever Judge
Science says 13.8 billion years. Genesis says 6,000.
Somebody has to be lying, right?
Would you be able to handle it if you found out they were both telling the truth?
Many faithful readers have tried to make peace. Day-age theory. Framework hypothesis. Analogical days. Temple cosmology. Each one tries to honor both Scripture plus scientific observation.
But what if there’s a specific way these fit together? Something we’ve been missing?
When Science Got It Wrong
Let me tell you about Piltdown Man.
In 1912, Charles Dawson walked into the Geological Society of London claiming he’d found the missing link between apes and humans — fossil fragments from Piltdown, England with a human-like skull and an ape-like jaw. Exactly what evolutionary theory predicted should exist.
For forty years — FORTY YEARS — everyone accepted it as genuine. Textbooks featured it. Museums displayed reconstructions. Scientists built entire theories around this “500,000-year-old” specimen.
Then 1953 happened.
New testing revealed the truth: complete fraud. The bones came from different species, artificially aged with chemicals. Someone had deliberately created a forgery and the scientific establishment had swallowed it whole.
What matters is that science itself exposed the fraud — rigorous, methodical science using new dating techniques, careful chemical analysis, and detailed anatomical study revealed what eager eyes had missed.
Science excels at this kind of work — measuring, testing, and verifying claims about the physical world. It can detect fraudulent fossils, date authentic ones, and trace evolutionary relationships.
That’s what good science does.
However, there’s one category science cannot address through measurement alone: how things actually began. Science tells you everything about what exists: its contents, patterns, and internal consistency--not how it came to exist, though. For that, you’d need someone who was actually there.
Notice the damage Piltdown caused: forty years of contaminated research and wrong conclusions. Even after exposure, it cast doubt on legitimate fossil discoveries.
When your introduction is a lie, everything that follows becomes suspect. Even after the truth comes out.
We all know this instinctively — first impressions create a lens through which we view everything else. When someone undermines their credibility at the introduction, you can’t help but question everything that follows. It’s not cynicism, it’s pattern recognition.
If they’ll lie about credentials, what else will they lie about?
The Biblical Intro
Genesis 1 is the Bible’s Piltdown moment.
Or so skeptics would have you believe.
It’s God’s introduction to humanity through scripture. The opening statement. The foundation upon which 66 books, 1,189 chapters, and 31,173 verses rest.
How you understand Genesis 1 shapes how you read everything that follows. Miss what Genesis actually claims about origins? You risk misunderstanding the entire narrative built on it.
Think about what hangs in the balance.
If Genesis doesn’t describe a God powerful enough to speak functional creation into existence, the flood’s global transformation becomes questionable. Without understanding God’s creative power, the Exodus miracles seem implausible. Can’t grasp how God actually operates? Prophecy becomes mysterious rather than comprehensible.
Plus this: misread how death entered creation through Adam’s rebellion — think death was always present — then Christ’s victory over death loses its foundation. The resurrection addresses a specific problem: the corruption of an originally good creation.
The entire Biblical narrative builds on understanding what Genesis 1 actually teaches about God’s creative power. Many faithful interpretations exist, like day-age theory, framework hypothesis, analogical days, and temple cosmology. Each attempts to preserve this foundation while engaging modern observations.
I’m proposing a different reconciliation, one that allows both Genesis and science to be right without compromising either.
This isn’t about forcing a choice between faith and science. It’s about finding the reading that best honors both.
Ask your pastor if WORDCRAVE™ is right for you.
Suffering from Genesis anxiety? Fear of science documentaries? Avoiding creation debates?
You may have Chronological Cognitive Dissonance (CCD).
WORDCRAVE™ reduces creation-science anxiety in one article. Side effects: sudden clarity, aggressive sharing, telling everyone “they were both right.”
Not responsible for atheist friends losing all their arguments.
The Problem: Two Incompatible Timelines
So what exactly is the credibility crisis? Genesis (read plainly with Biblical genealogies) points to a young Earth that’s roughly 6,000 years old, while science points to a far greater span of time.
Science presents its timeline with overwhelming confidence. The universe is 13.8 billion years old, measured through cosmic background radiation and stellar distances. Earth clocks in at 4.54 billion years, with multiple independent radiometric methods all converging on the same age. Life appeared 3.5 billion years ago, preserved in stromatolites and isotope signatures. Dinosaurs reigned from 245 to 66 million years ago, their end marked by that distinctive iridium layer. Modern humans emerged 300,000 years ago according to fossil and genetic evidence, while civilizations date back 11,500 years to sites like Göbekli Tepe.
Every dating method confirms every other. Every discipline agrees. The credentials? Impeccable.
Now contrast this with Genesis plus Biblical genealogies.
Actually trace through those genealogies — you know, those boring “begat” passages everyone skips — and a startling picture emerges. Creation to Adam is Day 6, obviously. From Adam to Noah, Genesis 5 meticulously records 1,656 years. Noah to Abraham spans 392 years according to Genesis 11. Abraham to Moses takes about 400 years, Moses to David another 400, and David to the Babylonian exile another 400 or so. From the exile to Christ is roughly 600 years, and from Christ to today about 2,000 years.
Add it up. Go ahead, check the math.
You get approximately 6,000 years.
Six thousand. Not six billion. Not six million. Six thousand.
That’s not a small discrepancy or a rounding error — that’s 2.3 million times different for the universe’s age, like claiming a fossil is 500 million years old when it’s actually 217 years old.
The Reversal I’m About to Demonstrate
Here’s where this gets interesting.
I’m about to do something no Young Earth Creationist typically does. Plus, in the spirit of Genesis itself — where God plainly declared “Let there be” without hiding His methods — I’m going to be completely forthright about what I’m about to do.
The Concession: I’m giving the skeptics and scientists everything. All of it. The universe IS 13.8 billion years old by every measurement we have. The Earth IS 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating works perfectly. Those dinosaur bones ARE 65+ million years old. They’re real. Light from distant stars DID travel for millions of years to reach us. The geological layers ARE laid down over vast ages. Continental drift DID happen over millions of years.
I’m not objecting to the age scientific evidence claims. I’m giving away the entire farm.
The Apparent Outcome: Genesis appears to have lost. Science has won. The Bible’s credibility? Shattered in its very first chapter. Christianity’s foundation has crumbled.
The Reversal: But using a science all scientists take for granted — a science they exploit daily without recognizing the authority they’re standing on — I’m going to take it all back. Every bit. Then hand it to Genesis on a silver platter.
The Resolution: You’ll realize Genesis has been technically accurate this entire time. We just didn’t have the framework to see it. Science — the very science that seems to disprove Genesis — will testify to its accuracy.
I’m being as forthcoming as God was about creation. He told us exactly what He did. He spoke, and it was. No deception here. No deception in creation either.
The question is: do we understand what that actually means in 21st-century scientific language?
This isn’t sleight of hand. Not trickery. It’s showing you something you’ve been looking at wrong the whole time.
You think the conflict is about time. It’s not. It’s about the nature of reality itself.
The science I’m about to use? Been around nearly 200 years. Decades before Darwin even published. Refined, tested, validated across two centuries. Scientists use it constantly without recognizing what it implies about origins.
Yet somehow, in all the Genesis-science debates, nobody thought to apply it here.
That changes today.
Ready for the show to begin?
The Word Skeptics Can’t Escape
Building vs. Creating: The Prison of Time
We’re trapped in a prison. Most of us don’t even realize it.
It’s not made of bars or walls. It’s made of time itself. Every action we know, every process we understand, every change we observe — they all happen through sequential steps.
We can’t escape this prison. We’re built from it.
But there’s one word — one specific action — that breaks these rules completely: CREATE.
When you build IKEA furniture, you follow steps:
Step 1: Lay out all pieces (wonder where that extra screw goes)
Step 8: Discover you’ve been using the Allen wrench backwards
Step 31: Question your life choices
Step 47: Realize you built it backwards, start over
Time required: 3 hours minimum. You cannot get to Step 47 without going through Steps 1-46. That’s what building means. Sequential assembly over time.
When you grow a tomato:
Week 1-3: Seed germination plus first leaves
Week 4-10: Vegetative growth plus flowering
Week 11-20: Fruit development plus ripening
You can water it obsessively. Threaten it. Beg it to ripen faster because you have salad plans. Nature doesn’t care. You cannot have a ripe tomato on Day 1.
Growing means developmental stages you cannot skip.
Notice the pattern? Building, growing — they all share one inescapable feature. Sequential steps through time. You cannot compress them to zero. You cannot skip to the end.
The process IS the thing.
Unless you happen to be a computer.
What “Create” Actually Means
Genesis uses a specific Hebrew word: בָּרָא (bara). Used exclusively with God as the subject. Not יָצַר (yatsar) meaning “to form or shape.” Not בָּנָה (banah) meaning “to build.” Not עָשָׂה (asah) meaning “to make.”
Genesis reserves bara for God’s unique acts. Bringing something into existence. When you create a thought, it suddenly exists. When you create a word, you speak it whole.
Notice the difference? “Create” signals something appearing complete. “Build” or “make” describes assembly through process.
But look at what Genesis actually shows us happening. Especially with Adam.
Exhibit A: Adam
Even if you dismiss the Hebrew word bara, even if you insist “create” must mean gradual development, you still have to deal with Adam.
Adam destroys the gradual development theory completely.
According to Genesis, on the very day Adam was formed from dust — Day 6 — Adam was zero days old. Brand new. Fresh from the manufacturer.
Yet on that same Day 0, Adam did things no newborn could even dream of.
He walked upright. Spoke fluent language. Understood abstract commands. Grasped moral concepts. These capabilities require a fully developed brain that takes 25 years to mature. He systematically named all animals — PhD-level taxonomic work. He recognized Eve poetically. Understood marriage (”Therefore a man leaves his father and mother”). Comprehending family structures he’d never experienced. Spoken by someone who HAD no parents to reference!
Let me put this in perspective.
A one-day-old human can’t even focus their eyes. Can’t hold up their own head. No object permanence. Can’t distinguish their own body from the environment.
Adam was composing poetry plus conducting taxonomy on Day 0.
A medical doctor examining Adam on Day 6 would find:
Fully developed brain structures
Mature muscle and bone density
Calluses on his feet from “years” of walking
Neural pathways indicating decades of language use
A hippocampus filled with “memories” of experiences
The emotional maturity of a 25-30 year old
The doctor would conclude: “This man is approximately 30 years old.”
The doctor would be wrong by 30 years.
Not because God deceived anyone. Because the doctor assumed Adam was BUILT through sequential biological processes rather than inaugurated complete.
So here’s my challenge to skeptics. Instead of debating what “create” must mean linguistically, why don’t we understand what it means by looking at what Genesis shows happening?
God didn’t grow Adam from infant to adult. He inaugurated him mature. God didn’t build Adam piece by piece. He brought him forth complete. God didn’t develop Adam through stages. He established him functional.
That’s not deception. That’s the difference between God inaugurating a new state versus creatures building through process.
Genesis isn’t hiding this. He’s declaring it openly. God brought forth complete, functional maturity. Not through building. Not through growing. Not through construction.
Through divine inauguration of ordered states. By speaking.
“Let there be...”
“And it was so.”
Enter: The Star Witness
The Thing You Missed
I can already hear the skeptic’s response.
“That’s fine as a creation myth. Ancient peoples needed stories to explain existence. But no scientifically literate person should believe a fully-formed adult human just popped into existence. That’s not how reality works.”
Fair enough. Let’s talk about how reality actually works.
Starting with something I mentioned that you probably glossed over without a second thought.
God created by SPEAKING.
“And God said, ‘Let there be light.’” “And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse.’” “And God said, ‘Let the waters teem.’”
Nine times in Genesis 1, God speaks reality into existence. Not thinks it. Not wills it. Not crafts it.
SPEAKS it.
You probably read right past that. Speaking is ordinary to you. You do it every day. Mundane. Unremarkable.
But let’s slow down. Let’s really examine what speaking actually is. There’s a lot going on under the hood that we take for granted.
The Science Hiding in Plain Sight
To speak, you need language. Language requires a codex. An agreed-upon set of symbols with assigned meanings. The letter “A” means something. The word “light” refers to something specific. Without this codex, speaking is just noise.
This codex encodes something. What? Information.
That’s what language is FOR. That’s what speaking DOES. It encodes information into symbols then transmits it. When I say “apple,” I’m encoding the information concept of a particular fruit into sound waves. Or visual symbols if written. Your brain decodes those symbols back into information.
Every time you speak, you’re doing something remarkable:
Selecting specific information from infinite possibilities
Choosing THIS word instead of millions of others
Encoding that information into symbols
Transmitting it through a medium
Someone else’s brain decodes those symbols back into information
Recreating the thought you intended to share
Speaking is information transmission. Always has been. Always will be.
Remember that science all scientists take for granted? The one they exploit without recognizing the authority they’re standing on?
It’s the science of information.
Before the philosophers start their engines, let me shut down the debate. This article isn’t going to argue about what information “really” is. Instead, we’re acknowledging simple facts about information that everyone already knows.
Information is not a property of matter. Information can be encoded IN matter. But it’s entirely independent FROM matter.
Delete every YouTube video of “Baby Shark.” Smash every singing toy. Scrub it from every streaming service. You can’t kill it. It’s already embedded in millions of children’s brains. Ready to be sung at maximum volume during your next Zoom call.
The information is immortal. No matter how desperately you wish otherwise.
I once tried to forget that song for a week. Failed miserably when a coworker played it on his car radio.
Theologically: The world is intelligible because Word precedes world. Information structures reality from the outside. Mathematics is “unreasonably effective” in describing physical reality. Why? It reveals the information architecture that defines what patterns are possible.
Without information, nothing works. Your eyes don’t directly “see.” They capture photons, encode that data into electrochemical signals, then transmit those signals through your optic nerve to your brain where they’re decoded into the experience of sight. Your ears don’t “hear” sound. They convert pressure waves into neural signals that travel through auditory nerves before your brain decodes them into meaning. Touch, taste, smell—same pattern. Sensory organs encode. Nervous systems transmit. Brains decode.
But here’s what matters most for our discussion: scientists couldn’t do science. Every observation encodes information. Every measurement transmits information. Every hypothesis selects information from possibilities. Every equation compresses information into symbols. Every experiment tests information patterns. Every publication spreads information.
Science IS information processing.
The very act of dismissing Genesis as “unscientific” requires using the science of information to process that dismissal.
Which is about to become a very risky gamble.
If information science supports Genesis’s account of creation through speaking, then scientists are sawing off the very branch they’re standing on. Information science is primary to every other scientific discipline.
Challenge it, you undermine everything.
The Pattern We Can’t Escape
Genesis says God created by speaking. Reality instantiated through words. Creation happening through language.
Scientists dismiss this: “That’s just myth. Reality doesn’t work that way.”
They’re missing something obvious.
Ancient creation myths had endless options. Cosmic eggs hatching. Divine battles birthing order from chaos. Gods molding clay. Primordial waters separating. The universe emerging from a giant’s corpse.
Genesis picked none of these.
Nine times: “And God said...”
God spoke. Information transmission. Language as mechanism. Code as foundation.
A Bronze Age text describes creation using the exact framework that became foundational to every scientific discipline thousands of years later. Pure coincidence?
Scientists dismissing Genesis as myth use information science to process their dismissal. Information science makes Genesis’s mechanism technically coherent.
You can’t dismiss information-based creation while standing on an information-based foundation.
What Information Systems Can Actually Do
The Testimony That Changes Everything
Information Science takes the stand. The courtroom falls silent.
This is the witness that physics, chemistry, biology, plus astronomy all depend on for their own testimonies. The witness that can’t be impeached without destroying the prosecutor’s entire case.
“Tell us,” the defense attorney begins, “what exactly can you do?”
Information Science delivers the bombshell nobody saw coming. A capability so fundamental we use it millions of times daily without recognizing its staggering implications for origins.
It’s called State.
In information science, “state” refers to the complete configuration of a system at a specific moment. Everything about the system at that instant. Every value, position, property — that’s its state.
Your computer right now has a state. Every bit of RAM has a value (0 or 1). Every pixel on your screen has a color value. Every file has specific contents. Every running process is at a specific point in its execution.
Change any single bit? You have a different state.
“But that’s just basic computer science,” the prosecutor interrupts. “What does this have to do with Genesis?”
Information Science smiles. “Let me show you something you’ve seen a thousand times but never truly understood. Think of an old movie reel.”
The courtroom sees it immediately. That long strip of film. Thousands of individual frames. Each frame is a complete state. The hero frozen mid-leap. The villain’s hand reaching for the gun. The heroine’s expression of shock. Every frame contains the entire world of that story at that exact moment. Every prop, shadow, detail frozen in time.
“Run the film through a projector at 24 frames per second,” Information Science continues. “Those states transition so quickly your brain perceives motion. State transition IS reality as you experience it.”
“Still sounds like basic physics,” the prosecutor says dismissively.
“Yes,” Information Science agrees. “Basic physics. The same physics that assumes every effect must have a cause. Every state must develop from a previous state. Time must flow frame by frame by frame. The physics you’re using to date the universe.”
Information Science pauses.
“Would you like to know what happens when information science — the science that makes your discipline possible — examines those assumptions?”
Information Science leans forward. Speaking slowly. Softly. Each word drops like a bomb across the prosecution’s case.
“You don’t need all the intermediate frames to get from the beginning to the end.”
The courtroom stirs. Information Science continues.
“Start watching any movie from the middle. Any frame. That single frame contains an entire implied history. The hero has scars from battles you didn’t watch. The clothes are worn from journeys you didn’t see. The relationships have depth from conversations you never heard. All that history exists, encoded in that single frame’s state.”
“More importantly,” Information Science pauses for effect, “you can skip from frame 1 directly to frame 240,000. From opening scene to closing credits. The intermediate frames don’t need to be played. They don’t even need to exist. The final frame still contains all the history. All the meaning. All the evidence of what ‘happened.’ Even if it never actually happened frame by frame.”
“But in movies, those intermediate frames DO exist,” the prosecutor objects.
“Do they?” Information Science asks. “Modern CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) generates final frames without creating intermediates. Animation software jumps from keyframe to keyframe. Video games create entire worlds in a single frame. Complete with ancient ruins plus weathered mountains that were never young. The frame you see contains a history that was never filmed. Never animated. Never actually existed as intermediate states.”
The prosecutor’s mouth opens. Then closes.
The implications are staggering. Every scientist who has ever used radiometric dating. Every astronomer who has measured stellar distances. Every geologist who has studied rock layers. They’re all calculating the age of a frame without knowing if the previous frames were ever played.
“But that’s just the beginning,” Information Science continues. Voice steady. Relentless. “We haven’t even discussed what happens when you save and load these states.”
State Saving and Loading
The prosecutor recovers slightly. “Saving and loading? Like a computer file?”
“Like reality itself,” Information Science responds.
When you save your progress in any application — word processor, spreadsheet, photo editor — you’re capturing the complete state of that system at that moment. Not the history of how you got there. Just the state itself.
This saved state contains implied history. Your document has tracked changes suggesting editing over time. Your spreadsheet has formulas referencing cells that “must have been” filled earlier. Your photo has adjustments implying a sequence of edits.
But the save file doesn’t contain the actual history. It contains the state that appears to have that history.
This brings us to State Loading. The ability to instantiate any saved state directly. Open that saved document? It doesn’t retype every character in the order you typed them. Doesn’t replay every edit you made. Doesn’t recreate your thinking process.
It simply loads the state. Instantly. Complete.
Your document might represent weeks of work. Hundreds of revisions. Thousands of individual keystrokes. The creative process of writing, deleting, rewriting.
Loading takes a fraction of a second.
“Think about this,” Information Science addresses the entire courtroom. “Every time you’ve opened ANYTHING on a computer, you’re experiencing state loading. Your tax return — months of work appearing instantly. That novel — ten chapters materialized in seconds. Your Photoshop project — hundreds of layers loaded immediately. The game you saved mid-battle — entire campaign restored in a heartbeat. Every saved file demonstrates state instantiation. Jumping from nothing to everything without replaying the journey.”
“Now imagine,” Information Science continues, “if information systems operated the way you claim reality must operate. Every time you opened that document, you’d have to wait. The computer would replay every keystroke you ever typed. Every backspace. Every cut and paste. Every moment you stared at the screen thinking. Every coffee break. It would take days to open a document you worked on for days. Weeks for a weeks-old project. By the time it caught up to where you left off, it would be time to close it again.”
The absurdity hangs in the air.
Everyone in the courtroom has opened saved files thousands of times. Never realizing they were witnessing something that, according to their own scientific assumptions, shouldn’t be possible. Jumping directly to an end state without playing through the intermediate history.
The prosecutor slumps in his chair. The case is unraveling.
Every expert witness he might call — physicists, chemists, biologists — all depend on information being valid and reliable. They use it constantly to process data. Test hypotheses. Build models. How can they dismiss the testimony of information science about state instantiation when their entire disciplines rest on information’s foundation?
“Your Honor,” Information Science addresses the judge, “I have one more demonstration. May I show the court how this applies not just to computers, but to reality itself?”
The judge nods, transfixed.
The Bridge to Reality
“Everything you see,” Information Science begins, gesturing to encompass the entire courtroom, “every atom vibrating, every photon traveling, every quantum field fluctuating — reality itself is nothing but state transitions.”
Look around you. Everything you see undergoes state transitions. Water boiling on your stove? State transition from liquid to gas. A seed sprouting into a plant? State transition from dormant to growing. Your car accelerating? Transitioning from one velocity state to another.
Even reading this sentence changed your brain state from “not knowing what comes next” to “knowing what I just said.”
The universe is causal. Everything has a cause. Which means everything experiences state transitions. The coffee cooling on your desk. The sun setting outside your window. Your heart beating in your chest. All state transitions. Reality is nothing BUT state transitions. Happening continuously at every scale from quantum to cosmic.
Think about what this means.
Reality consists of states plus state transitions (which we observe every second). God operates through information principles (which Genesis shows through speaking/creation). So reality itself must have the same capabilities as every other information system:
The ability to exist in states
The ability to transition between states
The ability to have states saved
The ability to have states loaded directly
We’ve established that God creates through speaking. Genesis explicitly states this nine times. Speaking is information transmission. That’s what speaking IS. Therefore, God operates through information principles.
So here’s the question that should make everyone pause.
If God operates through information (which Genesis clearly shows), then mustn’t God be AT LEAST as capable as our modern information systems?
Think about the alternative. Are we really prepared to argue that a laptop can save and load states, but God can’t? A video game can instantiate worlds with apparent history, but God can’t? A database can restore complex states instantly, but God can’t? Human programmers can skip intermediate states, but God can’t?
This is preposterous. Absurd.
It’s claiming a computer — a device humans built — is more capable with information than a being whose very nature requires omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), plus omnipresence (everywhere at once).
If those words mean anything at all, then God must be AT LEAST as capable as the information systems we create. Therefore, God — operating through information — can do what every information system can: instantiate states directly.
Every video game that loads a save file. Every simulation that starts with initial conditions. Every database that restores from backup. Every model that initializes with parameters. They’re all demonstrating the same principle.
Any state can be instantiated directly without developing through intermediate states.
The question isn’t whether this is possible. We know it’s possible. We do it millions of times daily across millions of systems.
The question is: what does this mean for our understanding of origins?
The Test Results
What Modern Simulations Reveal
Let me be crystal clear. I’m not using video games as empirical proof of Genesis. That would be circular reasoning.
Instead, I’m using them as analogies to illustrate what information systems can do. From an information science perspective, reality itself is an information system. These examples demonstrate concretely how state instantiation works. Which should fundamentally change how we think about origins.
Consider modern simulation games. Red Dead Redemption 2 loads canyons with millions of years of apparent geological history. No Man’s Sky generates 18 quintillion planets with complex geology, evolutionary ecosystems, plus ancient ruins. Creating in minutes what would take billions of years naturally. Skyrim presents thousand-year histories plus fossilized dragon bones.
The save file is seconds old. The world contains millennia.
This reveals a critical distinction that changes everything. Let me define some key terms:
State Instantiation Event: Loading a complete system configuration directly. Without developing through intermediate stages. Like loading a saved game or restoring a database backup.
Apparent Age: The age you’d measure by assuming natural development from an initial starting point. What science measures from inside the system.
Actual Runtime: How long the system has actually been running since instantiation. Knowable only from outside the system or through external testimony.
With these definitions in mind, apparent age is what you measure when you assume natural development. The dragon bones appear fossilized (thousands of years). The mountains show erosion (millions of years). The stars seem distant (light traveled for eons).
But the actual runtime — how long the system has actually been running — tells a different story. Your save file was created 5 seconds ago. The game was installed last week. The PlayStation was turned on this morning.
Science, when applied within these game worlds, would perfectly measure the apparent age. The geology would be consistent. The erosion patterns would be correct. The fossilization would follow proper chemistry.
Science would be completely right about the apparent age.
Plus completely wrong about the actual runtime.
Information Science Has the Final Say
Here’s where information science stands up. Asserts its authority over all other sciences:
“You may measure these things accurately. Your radiometric dating may be flawless. Your cosmic distance calculations may be perfect. Your geological stratification may be precise. But if a State Instantiation Event has taken place, all your measurements submit to Actual Runtime. Because information science has the final say.”
Why? Because every other science operates WITHIN the system. They measure the content of the state. But information science deals with the state itself. Including how and when it was instantiated.
To be clear: I’m not claiming empirical proof that God instantiated creation 6,000 years ago. I’m demonstrating that from an information science perspective, this is technically coherent. Observationally consistent with what physical sciences measure. The claim is information-theoretic accuracy, not laboratory verification.
The universe’s apparent age plus depth are exactly what we’d expect if God instantiated creation as a mature system 6,000 years ago. Which then began running sequentially.
When a database administrator restores a backup, the database contains customer records showing years of purchases (apparent age). Transaction logs suggesting temporal sequence (apparent history). Timestamps indicating ancient operations (apparent timeline).
But the restoration took 5 minutes (actual runtime).
No amount of analysis within the database can determine the actual runtime. You’d need information from outside the system. From the administrator who performed the restoration.
Now look at what we’re dealing with. Science measures the universe. Finds stars billions of light-years away. Rocks with radioactive decay. Fossils in geological strata. All apparent age.
Genesis states the universe was created 6,000 years ago (actual runtime). Instantiated mature and functional (state loading). Through speaking/information (the mechanism).
If God performed a State Instantiation Event (creation), then science’s measurements of apparent age would be accurate but completely subordinate to the actual runtime. Only the System Administrator (God) can provide actual runtime information.
Scientists who dismiss Genesis are essentially saying: “We’ve analyzed the save file. Determined it must have developed over millions of hours of gameplay.”
While Genesis is saying: “I loaded that save state 5 minutes ago.”
Who has the authority here? The analysis within the system? Or the testimony of the one who instantiated it?
Information science says: When dealing with state instantiation, external testimony trumps internal measurement.
Always.
“Scientists read the testimony of rocks. Scripture reads the testimony of persons.
Both are reading testimony.
But when you’re inside a computer game, whose testimony would you trust:
The ancient ruins telling you they’re a thousand years old?
Or the developer who pressed ‘New Game’ five minutes ago?The ruins aren’t lying. They’re just inside the game.”
And the Winner Is...
The Final Authority
When it comes to State Instantiation Events, physics can measure forces within the system. Chemistry can analyze compounds within the system. Biology can study life within the system. Astronomy can observe stars within the system.
But ONLY information science can speak to the instantiation OF the system itself.
Every other science is trapped inside. Measuring the content of the state. Information science alone deals with the state as a state.
So here we are. I promised you a reversal. I’ve delivered.
Science measures 13.8 billion years. It’s right about the apparent age. Genesis reports 6,000 years. It’s right about the actual runtime.
Both can be true. Both ARE true from an information science perspective.
This isn’t empirical proof in the laboratory sense. It’s information-theoretic coherence. Showing that Genesis’s account is technically accurate when understood through the lens of state instantiation plus information systems.
The claim? The universe’s current state — with all its apparent age plus implied history — is exactly what we’d expect if God instantiated creation as a mature, functional system 6,000 years ago.
“But That Makes God a Liar!”
I can already hear the objection forming. In fact, I can hear the screaming:
“GOD IS A LIAR! He created fake history! False evidence! Deceptive age!”
Stop. Think about what you’re actually claiming.
Depth at instantiation isn’t deception. It’s divine generosity.
Consider God’s attributes:
His goodness provides a world immediately fit for life. Fruit-bearing trees on Day 3, not just seeds waiting decades to produce food. A good Father sets the table before His children arrive.
His wisdom creates ordered functionality. Each thing matched to its purpose. Legible and stable. This is why science can measure patterns consistently. The depth you observe IS the order.
His sufficiency means nothing essential is missing. Creation arrives complete. Not half-baked awaiting eons of development.
Look at Genesis’s own pattern. Days 1-3 establish forms (light/dark, sky/sea, land/vegetation). Days 4-6 fill them (luminaries, creatures, humanity). This isn’t random. It’s purposeful ordering toward immediate functionality.
The depth we measure — light already arriving from stars, soil rich with nutrients, ecosystems in balance — these aren’t props. They’re the signature of a God who prepares. Orders. Withholds nothing necessary.
Scripture shows this pattern throughout. Adam created mature, not infant. Wine at Cana aged instantly, not fermented over years. Loaves multiplied complete, not grown from wheat. The fig tree withered immediately, not through seasons.
Each time, God provides the end state directly. He values function over process. Generosity over parsimony.
Deception requires intent to mislead. But God did the opposite. He told us EXACTLY what He did. He literally walked with Adam in the garden (Genesis 3:8). Gave Adam direct commands on Day 6 of creation (Genesis 2:16-17). Declared through Scripture precisely how and when He created. Maintained this testimony for 6,000 years. Had it published in the most copied book in human history.
If a master craftsman builds you a house with reclaimed wood, tells you directly, “I built this last week to look rustic,” then you insist it must be 100 years old based on the wood’s appearance — who’s doing the deceiving? The builder who told you the truth? Or you who rejected their testimony?
Suppose you’re still not convinced. Maybe you think God should have created a universe that “looks” exactly 6,000 years old. No apparent depth. No implied history. No functional maturity. A universe that couldn’t possibly be misunderstood.
Well, you don’t have to take my word for it! We can ride that Reading Rainbow right into a horrific scene LeVar Burton would never have recommended to young readers.
The Alternative Is Worse
Consider what skeptics actually demand when they insist on an “honest” young universe:
The sky would be almost completely black. Only a tiny handful of stars visible within 6,000 light-years. No Milky Way painting the heavens. No distant galaxies declaring glory. Just void.
Is this the God who “stretches out the heavens like a curtain” (Psalm 104:2)?
The ground would not be soil. Soil formation requires decomposed organic matter accumulated over time. No place for seeds to grow. No foundation for life.
Is this the God who “waters the mountains from His upper chambers” (Psalm 104:13)?
Rivers would be empty channels. Waiting centuries for water cycles to establish. Trees would be mere seeds sitting on Earth’s surface. Unable to provide food for decades.
Is this the God who says “I have given you every seed-bearing plant for food” (Genesis 1:29)?
Most critically, Adam would be a helpless infant. Unable to walk, speak, or understand God’s commands. Unable to tend the garden. Unable to name the animals. Unable to recognize Eve. Dying within hours from exposure.
Is this the God who created humanity “in His image” to exercise dominion (Genesis 1:26-28)?
This barren, dysfunctional cosmos isn’t honesty. It’s divine negligence. It mistakes parsimony for virtue. Scripture shows us a God of abundance who “gives generously to all without finding fault” (James 1:5).
FINE! I can’t take it anymore!
If I’m being perfectly honest, I’ve actually been extremely charitable in this description. Too charitable.
The fact of the matter is: the truth is far worse by comparison than this quaint picnic of a scene.
A genuinely 6-day-old planet wouldn’t even have cooled bedrock. It would be molten or barely crusted over. Radioactive from recent formation. Surface temperatures of hundreds of degrees. The moment Adam was instantiated, even as a baby, he would be instantly incinerated on the molten rock.
There would be no seeds. No dry channels. No bare bedrock. Nothing but an endless hellscape from which no living thing could survive even for a moment. The universe wouldn’t just lack depth. It would be actively hostile to life itself.
It’s the kind of story only the Devil would whisper while tucking his kids into bed.
This is what skeptics demand when they insist on an “honest” young universe. Not just divine negligence, but divine homicide. They want God to drop Adam into literal hell then call it truth. The “honest” universe they demand isn’t just a theological contradiction (a good God creating a death trap, a wise God crafting chaos, a sufficient God providing insufficiency).
It’s cosmic child abuse.
Yet when God instantiates functional maturity — when He actually provides a universe where life can exist, where stars already shine, where soil can nourish plants, where Adam can actually survive his first breath — suddenly THAT’S “bad”?
They’re not asking for honesty. They’re demanding God create a molten hellscape. Drop humans into it to instantly die. Call that moral superiority. They’re insisting God be less generous than survival requires. Less wise than life demands. Less powerful than love compels.
But maybe skeptics want a world that looks mature but tests young. Starlight arriving faster than light. Ancient-looking rocks that carbon date as fresh.
What do we call a fake ID where the baby face doesn’t match the birth year? Fraud. That’s what skeptics actually ask for. Divine fraud. A cosmic fake ID nobody believes.
The form-and-fill pattern of Genesis 1 reveals God’s method. Establish realms, then fill them with purpose. Light before luminaries. Waters before fish. Land before beasts. Each form prepared for its filling.
This is divine wisdom. Not building through trial and error. Speaking complete systems into being.
When God says “Let there be,” He’s not starting a process. He’s declaring a state. When He sees “it is good,” He’s not watching development. He’s evaluating completeness. When He blesses and commands “be fruitful,” He’s not hoping for eventual functionality. He’s commissioning immediate purpose.
Creating a mature, functional universe isn’t deception. It’s the signature of a master Artist who values beauty even when unnecessary for pure function. Who enables discovery by hiding treasures for us to find. Who preserves choice by making the universe deep enough to allow skepticism. Who demonstrates competence by making everything work perfectly from Day 1.
The universe needed to be functionally complete from the start. Light from stars had to already be arriving. Or nights would be dark for thousands of years. Soil needed organic content. Or plants couldn’t grow. Adam needed gut bacteria, muscle memory, neural pathways. Or he couldn’t function.
This changes everything.
The apparent age isn’t fake history. It’s the necessary initial conditions for a functional universe. That 13.8 billion years of apparent history? Required data for physics, chemistry, plus biology to work correctly on Day 1. Delete that data and nothing functions. The isotope ratios, the light in transit, the weathered rocks — they’re not lies. They’re the operational parameters of a mature system.
This isn’t deception. It’s the sufficiently mature universe. Teleologically complete from the first Sabbath. It’s the difference between divine hospitality (everything prepared for humanity’s flourishing) and divine negligence (making creation wait billions of years to function).
God is not a liar for creating depth.
He would be incompetent if He hadn’t.
Answering the Judges’ Questions
“This makes science meaningless.” No. Science perfectly measures apparent age. Discovers the patterns God instantiated. Still valuable. Still revealing design. Just measuring depth rather than development time.
“You can’t falsify this.” Mario can’t run tests to prove Nintendo doesn’t exist. No simulation allows falsifying claims about the external system from within. The inability to falsify instantiation from inside isn’t a bug. It’s what we observe.
“Why trust Genesis?” Genesis uniquely describes creation through speech/information. Instantaneous mature creation. Specific timelines. It reads like technical documentation for information-based reality instantiation.
“This is God-of-the-gaps.” Opposite. We’re not inserting God where science fails. We’re showing science succeeds precisely because it measures God’s instantiated information structures.
What This Means For You
The Choice You Face
So where does this leave you, personally?
If you’ve followed the logic this far, you’re facing a decision. It has nothing to do with science versus faith. It’s about which testimony you trust regarding the actual runtime of reality.
The internal measurements that can only detect apparent age? Or the external testimony from the One who claims to have instantiated it all?
This isn’t about abandoning science. Science works perfectly. It measures exactly what it’s designed to measure. But it measures from inside the system. It tells you the depth of the rendering. The complexity of the state. The apparent history encoded in the patterns.
What it cannot tell you is when the system booted up.
If Genesis is accurate about creation through information instantiation, your life isn’t a cosmic accident emerging from chaos. You’re living inside a deliberately instantiated reality. Created by a mind that values depth, beauty, discovery, plus choice. Every moment of wonder you’ve experienced — from sunsets to symphonies — is there by design. Not accident.
Your ability to understand any of this is itself evidence. Why should a universe that emerged from nothing produce minds capable of comprehending it? But if you bear the image of the Coder, your capacity to understand the code makes perfect sense.
Your struggles with faith versus science have been based on a false dichotomy. You don’t have to choose between intellectual integrity and spiritual belief. Genesis has been scientifically accurate all along. We just needed the right scientific framework to see it.
You can continue believing 13.8 billion years of random processes accidentally produced consciousness. That your thoughts are just chemical reactions with no deeper meaning. That death is simply your state machine halting with no possibility of restoration.
Or you can consider that you’re living in an intentionally instantiated reality. Your consciousness bears the image of the Consciousness that coded everything. The One who instantiated life the first time can do it again.
This isn’t about forcing you to believe. Remember — the universe is deep enough to allow skepticism. That’s a feature, not a bug. It preserves your choice.
But now you can’t say Genesis contradicts science. That excuse is gone. The first impression has been vindicated through the very framework scientists use every day.
The question now isn’t whether Genesis is scientifically credible.
The question is what you’re going to do with that credibility.
Epilogue: The Credibility Restored
Remember Piltdown Man?
Forty years of contaminated research because the introduction was a fraud. When your first impression is fake, everything after becomes suspect.
Genesis appeared to have the same problem. Claiming a young Earth while science measured an ancient one. The introduction looked like a lie.
But here’s what we’ve discovered. Genesis has been technically accurate this entire time. We just needed information science to catch up to what Moses wrote 3,400 years ago.
Piltdown Man crumbled under scrutiny. Genesis grows stronger under it.
If Genesis is accurate about creation through information instantiation, then maybe we should reconsider our skepticism about everything else. These miracles become trivial modifications inside an information system.
The Flood, the Exodus plagues, parting the Red Sea, manna from heaven — these aren’t violations of natural law. They’re the System Administrator using dev tools. Any game admin can spawn plagues. Modify water physics. Generate daily food drops.
Resurrection? Please. How many times has Mario come back from falling off a cliff? Every player expects respawn mechanics. The One who instantiated life the first time doesn’t need to “figure out” how to do it again. Death is just a state transition. Reversible by anyone with admin privileges.
God could respawn everyone continuously like video game NPCs (Non-Player Characters). But He doesn’t. The technical triviality makes His restraint significant. We’re image-bearers whose choices matter eternally. Not game characters.
The mechanism is simple. The meaning is everything.
Prophecy becomes trivial when you can preview outcomes. Run the simulation forward. Observe the end state. Reload to the present. Announce what’s coming. To us it looks like prediction. To the System Administrator, it’s just checking the code before deployment.
Salvation? That’s just good customer service. Your data’s been corrupted by malware (sin). The system crashes (death). A competent developer offers patches. The fact that the Developer incarnated into His own system to provide the fix personally? That’s going above and beyond. Like Notch joining his own Minecraft server to help players directly.
Genesis plus science were never enemies. They were two witnesses testifying to the same truth in different languages. One measured apparent age within the system. The other reported actual runtime from outside it.
Both told the truth. Both were right.
Piltdown Man contaminated research for forty years because the handshake was fake.
Genesis has anchored faith for 6,000 years because the handshake was real.
The universe has been honest with us all along. God told us exactly what He did. He spoke, and it was. We just needed information science to translate ancient Hebrew into modern terms. State instantiation. Information encoding. Functional maturity loaded from the start.
The first impression wasn’t a lie. It was a technical manual written before we had the framework to read it.
Now we do.
The question before you isn’t whether Genesis contradicts science anymore. That excuse is gone.
The question is: what are you going to do with a credible introduction?
The handshake is real. The first impression holds up under scrutiny. The Book that begins with Genesis doesn’t end there. It goes on to explain why you exist. What went wrong. How to fix it.
Piltdown Man teaches us that a fraudulent foundation destroys everything built on it.
Genesis teaches us that a solid foundation changes everything built on it.
Which one are you standing on?
Coming Soon to WordCrave
deep trailer voice
Just when you thought it was safe to... well, do anything.
In a world where science and scripture seemed hopelessly at odds...
One writer dared to ask: What if they’ve both been right all along?
thunder rumbles
Coming this October...
You thought you understood Genesis.
You thought you understood reality.
You thought Baby Shark was the worst thing that could get stuck in your head.
You were wrong about everything.
ominous bass drop
From the author who just proved God can instantiate universes like loading a save file, comes a revelation that will shake you to your core.
There’s something in scripture. Something nobody talks about. Something that’s been waiting 6,000 years for you to understand what it really is.
It’s not Satan.
It’s not death.
It’s not like any judgment you’ve ever been taught.
It’s the difference between human law that sits quietly in a book... and a 200-story walking apocalypse that can shake the foundations of the earth.
distant, building roar: SKREEEEEOOOOONNNNKKK
whispered: “Code is king over all the sons of pride...”
Final Destination
Your Escape Room With No Way Out
Some errors can’t be debugged.
Some commands can’t be cancelled.
Some processes, once started, cannot be stopped.
Plus it’s been running in the background this whole time.
screen flashes to black
“We’re gonna need a bigger theology.”
Subscribe now. Sleep later.