Well, as far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that evidence as it relates to the age of the earth goes like this. Star A is 100 billion light years distant from our earth. Because we know that light travels at X speed, then the universe must be Y years old for us to be able to see the light of star A.
But this 'fact' must be couched with the agreement of one assumption and that is that through all moments of time in this universe light speed has to have been constant.
However, if one allows for miracles, then it can be proposed that at the moment of creation, God expanded the light of star A to immediately fill the entire universe, and then the light waves behind those waves settled to the speed of light that we now know. Unfortunately, this proposition can be neither proven nor disproven except to say that based on what we know today about light, it is an impossible proposition.
There are problems with current cosmology (i.e. scientific explanations for the origins of the universe). Or at least I have problems with it. They take physical measurements of the present, extrapolate that into a metaphysical concept called "time" that no one can adequately explain, and then apply that to models of the universe that don't contain the same physical constructs on which "time" is based. In short, I don't think it should be taken for granted that what we call time now is the same as what existed in the early stages of the universe.
The funny thing is, YEC does the same thing, but comes up with a different answer. That doesn't surprise me when operating on shaky principles.
I think the issue can be resolved. Alan Padgett (a fellow Lutheran) proposed an excellent, cohesive concept for God's relationship to time (I might make a tweak here and there, but among established philosophers his idea is definitely the best). What's even sweeter about his idea is that I think it can be used by science as well.
In the end, you are right. It's just speculation and the matter will probably never be settled. But the point is that it need not be dismissed as a mystery that is impossible to make sense of. It makes perfect sense to me to say God created the stars on the 4th day, and yet to us it appears it happened over billions of years.
Now, let's turn that same scientific reasoning to the birth of Jesus. Jesus was born just as any normal child today is born through the birth canal of a woman. Science has proven that the only way a woman can begin a term of pregnancy is that an egg in her womb is fertilized by human sperm. I am discounting other means of man induced pregnancy as they were not available to the people of Israel 2,000 years ago, but even they require a human sperm to fertilize a human egg. Therefore, based on the scientific knowledge that we have today, Mary's pregnancy is impossible as the Scriptures tell us and the account of her conception must either be a lie in how it happened or just not have happened at all.
Why are you discounting other methods? It doesn't matter that they were unavailable to Joseph. Those methods have always been available to God ... and I think it has already been mentioned that there is a known "natural" mechanism for this. It is called parthenogenesis. Now, granted I believe it is thought that parthenogenesis will only produce females, and it's never been confirmed in people, but the mechanism is there. So why should we deny it?
With that said, I have no doubt God caused Mary's pregnancy as it is related in Scripture. As I said earlier, I'm not a believer in "natural" causes. My view is that God causes everything. It's just that He doesn't do it willy-nilly. He doesn't decide gravity will work today, but maybe He'll change His mind and it won't work tomorrow. He has promised us an ordered universe, and He knows how, within that order, to use His power to perform miracles.
He has not revealed how He caused the virgin birth, and for singular events like that, there is no way for us to figure it out. Unless he chooses to reveal how He did it, we can only speculate - just as with the parting of the Reed Sea. I am aware of that.
So, you see, people are willing to forego scientific evidence to explain the birth of Jesus and just accept on faith that it happened the way it did because God said it did, despite any medical or scientific 'laws' that we know today to be true, yet they are wholly unwilling to accept that that very same principle is at work in God's accounting for us the way He created this realm. Why is that?
As I think I demonstrated, in my case that is not true.
It would be fun for me to write a book on cosmology, metaphysics, etc. as it seems my view is very different (at least from anyone here at CF). I would do it if there were actually an interest in it, but such is not the case.
So, I will just repeat: Yes, there are things we do not understand and probably never will understand. I am content to accept those things on faith because I believe God is infinite - there is no end to knowing what is to be known about Him. At the same time, as long as there is no end to me, I see no reason to stop learning what I can learn.
- - -
Some claims can be swept away by a born again believer as having no basis in Scriptures and purely legends of men, but others can not. For this requires a person of discernment and knowledge of the things of God.
Sorry, but a few nitpicks here. First, I hope you rely on more than your own discernment. I hope you are in fellowship with a body of believers and lean on them. The Spirit works through the Church. We Americans are too prone to individualism, and think we can do it on our own, and that attitude has infected American Christianity. I, for one, bow to the discernment of the LCMS.
Second, while it may be true that some are lacking in discernment, it is not helpful to tell people that. Did Jesus call the little children to him, and then say, "You guys are immature and don't understand anything, so just do what I say and don't ask questions."? When the disciples asked questions, did he say, "Pffft! Morons."?
No. Yet I see a lot that here. "You can't understand the brilliance I just posted because you don't have the Spirit." It is true that unbelievers don't have an indwelling of the Spirit, but it doesn't help to take that attitude with them. Honestly, I don't think you're the type to do that, so I'm hoping this is just a clarification between brothers.
Oh, and FYI, you can call me Caner. That's my preferred form of address.
