I'm not claiming that "given enough time *anything* can happen". The 'thing' that is to happen must have a non-zero probability. The analogy with dictionaries evolving into the works of Shakespeare is a rather odd and irrelevant construct, IMO.

This 'mathematical' argument makes all sorts of baseless assumptions about the probabilites of evolution occurring, since those probabilities are clearly unknown. Your cite "many mathematicians". Who are they? Where do they get their data? You know, I could just as easily cite 'many mathematicians' who say evolution is probable -- but I don't because I think that it's an equally bogus argument.

But yes, even an extremely unlikely event (say one out of X, where X is an inconceivably large number) is almost certain to occur if, in all of time and space, there are 100 times X opporunities for it to occur.

<The reason I am agnostic about the age of the earth is that I believed in Old, Old Earth for most of my life and have only recently come to reject it. That's not something that happens overnight. I would love to be able to simply adopt Young Earth: but the Scriptures aren't shouting it at me.>

Fine. This confirms my point that you have honorable reasons for being reluctant to accept young-earth ideas, and that an ardent young-earthist would be wrong to say that your motives are just to be "on the world's good side". And again, for the same reasons, I would argue that you have no right to say that about people who disagree with your views.

<Meanwhile, go ahead--convince me that the Bible allows Darwinism. I don't think it does, but I might change my mind if you can show me otherwise-- from Scripture.>

Well, without promising to convince you, suppose that God did create using natural processes over billions of years, as scientific observations seem to suggest. The process going from the big bang to life on earth would obviously be complex beyond comprehension to humans. How would God describe it to Moses?

Might he not give a summary of those events from the most simple perspective? What could that perspective be?

How would God measure time? Time itself moves at a different rate at different places, depending on matter and velocity (as shown by Einstein). It would seem to make sense that time would be measured from the point of the big bang (or at least the point where our portion of the visible universe began). Let's call that point X.

So point X expands, coalesces into matter, forms galaxies, stars, planets, etc. Eventually, through natural processes, life emerges on a planet called earth, and eventually evolves into a man we'll call Adam.

From Adam's perspective, here on earth, the whole process would have taken about 15 billion years. But how long would it have taken time were measured from the perspective of point X? It would definitely be less time because time travels slower in the presence of immense mass and immense velocity, which certainly was the case at point X. In fact, it has been demonstrated that the elapsed time measured at point X would be just six days (i.e. six 24 hour periods) -- interestingly, in agreement with Genesis.

Anyway, none of this is my idea. I first saw it proposed by a Jewish physicist (PhD from MIT) and author named Gerald Schroeder. If you are interested, you can read his ideas (including how he justifies it with the Hebrew scriptures and ancient oral traditions) here:

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136...

BTW, I'm not saying that Schroeder is right. However, it appears to be an intellectually honest attempt to reconcile the Bible with science.

I do think you've misunderstood my saying that theistic evolution is an attempt to be faithful to God while staying on the world's good side. OK, I could've phrased it less combatively.

But, really--who does not want to stay on the world's good side? Who does not long for human approval? This is a serious temptation! The Bible gives us fair warning, but even then we still succumb... at least occasionally.

In the article I gave you, Dr. Schroeder mostly deals with cosmology. He has another article that discusses how the Hebrew texts and ancient commentary permit the concept of evolution.

And yes, when you said "staying on the world's good side", I took it to mean compromising one's faith to be popular with people. Is that not what you meant?

Are you receptive to considering the young earth position?>

More than that, I actually *did* believe it a number of years ago.

However, after taking the time examine both sides of the debate, I became convinced that the young earth creationist ideas were indefensible, and thus there had to be a better way to understand Genesis (whether I ever found it or not).

- The evidence for an old earth and old universe is overwhelming.

- The idea that all these scientists are collaborating in a lie just to have an excuse to not believe a particular interpretation of Genesis was hard to swallow, completely unnecessary, and very likely a false accusation.

- The idea that God created all this evidence of an old earth (light and radiation in space from events that never happened, false uranium decay, layers of ice & sediment, craters on Mercury, etc, etc, just to create the "appearance of age" is completely contrived, unsupportable by either sense or scripture.

As for Dr. Schroeder, it's impossible for me to form an opinion of what he's saying because I lack the requisite background in physics, and I'm not all that well-versed in medieval Jewish scholars. So I've persuaded a physicist whom I know to read the book and tell me what he thinks.

Sure. But that's not the issue I'm addressing.

If we asked a scientist if it were possible for five small loaves of bread and two fish could be multiplied (without adding anything) such that it would provide satisfying meals for over 5,000 hungry people, I suspect he/she would say "no" (perhaps citing scientific law called the "conservation of mass").

I would not accuse this scientist of being a liar. Perhaps you would.

<Anyway, while I simply don't agree with your viewpoint that the evidence cited points to an older earth, even if it did, I am not shocked that God might test man with such a challenge.>

So you think that maybe God gives evidence that the earth is old, and we are to be blamed for observing this evidence and thus reasoning that the earth is old. If we are to accept your view, then why should we ever use reason?

No, I don't think what you just concluded about my position. I think with certain assumptions, someone might conclude the earth is old and I think God might test man with that.

<If we are to accept your view, then why should we ever use reason?>

No comment.

<Conversely, I think we are *expected* to use our reason, and we are more likely to be blamed for failing to use it. >

I have said repeatedly that I believe my position is reasonable and defensible.

<Maybe God is challenging us, but instead of challenging us to throw away our reason, He is challenging us to use it with humbleness and kindness. At least *that* challenge would be more consistent with Biblical teaching IMO.>

I was commenting on the <even if it [the evidence] did [point to an older earth]> clause of your earlier comment. You qualify with "certain assumptions", although those assumptions are perfectly logical assumptions -- the same sort of assumptions that scientists make all the time and which prove to be highly successful.

<I have said repeatedly that I believe my position is reasonable and defensible. >

Frankly, I've been trying for some time to get you to defend your position. I've gotten a lot of strawman arguments (e.g. sarcasm), wrong ideas about science, inconsistencies, bald assertions, and lately, a lot of "no comments".

<Maybe He is challenging us to believe what His word plainly says and consider that He is unchanging and not prone to self serving suppositions and assumptions that a priori prove a position.>

You assume that people who interpret differently than yourself do so only for self serving reasons. One may just as well call that a self serving assumption on your part.

I do?

<Anyway, this is ground already covered.>

We are getting hung up on the age of the earth--all right, it's OK to get hung up on that.

My question is, "Why does the physical universe, which God created, APPEAR TO US TO BE SO OLD?" Maybe Dr. Shroeder has figured that out. Maybe we have drawn the wrong conclusions from nature, misinterpreted what we see. The ancient-looking terrain, created in a matter of days by the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's, springs to mind.

No. I presume you got that idea from my statement that I would not call a scientist a liar just because he/she said the miracles were impossible. This scientist is simply confirming that it's a miracle.

<My question is, "Why does the physical universe, which God created, APPEAR TO US TO BE SO OLD?">

I think the most sensible answer is: "because it IS so old".

<God created us and gave us, along with other faculties, reason. Modern man has made an idol of reason. And in so doing, his reason was taken away little by little and replaced by pride, and he never knew the difference...>

Reason = one's earnest desire to seek truth. A good thing that we are taught to do.