Hi Jeff (and Steve and Jez et al),

I looked up what I could on the age of the universe discrepancy. The age that everyone here seems to be accepting is the Hubble age (10 to 20 billion years). The age I was citing was one inferred from high energy physics theory involving proton decay. I was using the longest estimation I know of because, as I said earlier, my intent was to give as great a benefit of the doubt as reasonably possible to random mutation and natural selection. (Remember that I am not, whatever you may think to the contrary, attempting to prove to anyone that God did anything).

So, if you insist, I will accept your estimation of the age of the universe at 10 to 20 E+9 years. Doing so only strengthens my position. But before you start preaching the Hubble estimate as gospel, I would point out that it includes (at least implicitely) the assumption of open expansion. I know of no one in the field who will accept open expansion as anything more than one possibility.

As for my math, I will see if and when I might have time to put something together, assuming I can shorten it enough to post at all. But let's not forget that I am not trying to prove anything to you. You are the one who insists that 4 to 5 billion years is time enough for natural selection to drive evolution through random mutation. So lets see your (or anyone else's) calculations. I don't mind being the only one putting forth an idea for others to poke at, but I would like to see substantive poking as opposed to mere truth by assertion. After all, anyone can assert anything they like.