I would say that rolling dice has more to do with statistics & probability than it does with luck.

Evolution is a theory which claims events such as variation within species, mutations, and survival of the fittest ...as supporting its professed reality.

So, since that requires time and random events ...in that way, it's like rolling dice.

Suppose we imagine a Planet of the Apes.  Now, I never saw the movie, so I'm just saying we have a planet filled with apes, according to evolution.  Okay, maybe not an entire planet ...but at least a continent. And let's say those apes live in very distinct areas, not just one place. The evolutionist would roll the genetic dice, and over millions of years there would be genetic changes ...followed by genetic changes ...followed by genetic changes.

But, it would not be a one time deal. Though many of you seem never to tire of casinos, or rolling the dice ...and though you may imagine yourself to roll the dice even in your sleep, the dice do eventually stop rolling.  Yet, the genetics game continues throughout intervals of sleep (and snuggling), as well as during all waking hours.  And if rolling snake eyes ...well, let's say it is equivalent to a few million years.  So, we could conclude that throughout several casinos (or ape nests) the snake eyes are not rolled simultaneously.  Yet, within a few million years, statistically we could also say the process would eventually repeat, and there would be snake eyes again.

Though, that is not what we see.  Apes are fully apes ...and none can be found at the interim stage.  Some people act like animals, but that is not the same thing.

And anyone who studies animals extensively cannot avoid sometime or another coming across the very stuff that supports any kind of argument one wants to make (and no, you don't have to point out that I also have a Bachelor's of Science (BS) degree.) 

Science can assert itself, and also scoff at other points of view. At one time it can boldly claim that the sun revolves around the earth, and ridicule anyone who says the earth revolves around the sun.  Though science can be supported by many supported calculations and observations ...the imagination also has much influence.

Sadly, that is what evolutionary scientists often say about those who believe in the Bible.  They consider it a popular story derived from an active imagination.

Science often speaks as though other points of view are just wishful thinking and 'feel-good' scenarios or stories.  In truth, many people who believe in the Bible don't give good answers to many of the challenging questions, though they themselves think what they say really embarrasses science.

Science is seldom embarrassed, as it always seems ready to dismiss wrong data not as a loss of credibility ...but as an opportunity, as they seem always prepared to overwhelm you with new data and findings.

Yet, yes, it is sadly true that arguments like I just began here do not provide a wise pathway to reasoning. Asking why apes are not presently evolving just opens up the conversation for one to eagerly challenge something I perhaps have not thought through very thoroughly.  It's like trying to get a better grade on an exam than the person who wrote the test.  They have all the answers memorized ...and I think I can just wing it, even though I barely studied.

First of all, scientists don't say we evolved from apes ...they say we both came from a common ancestor.  One article said the apes are just our cousins.  And it went further to say that even if the chimpanzees could develop our traits ...they probably wouldn't want to.  (Maybe they like to monkey around too much, but I don't see humans lacking in that area either.)

So, I don't have to open my mouth to try to discredit the evolutionary scientist ...because I know little about what they know about.  I don't have to act like my ideas make their ideas laughable.  And I don't have to try to match wits with them ...as if I know more. 

No, I don't know more ...but, God does.  And it is not just the scientists who document years of events.  You don't have to take my word for it ...as God's Word is more than sufficient.

Yes, I believe in Creation ...and that it happened just a little over a half dozen thousand years ago.

You can look at everything from an evolutionary standpoint ...but, I can look at a duck-billed platypus and see God's definite creativity, & perhaps a bit of His personality, inclusive of a sense of humor.

We used to say that opposites attract ...but, some of you believe two randomly mutant beings just happened to meet, and not only were alike, but liked each other.  And the rest is history.

I believe in the love story called the Bible, and how beautifully it is His story.

I do believe the universe could be much older ...as the angels must have had some habitat.  And it was mentioned that there was water ....lots of water.  It never mentioned where the water came from.  But, it does mention where much did come from ...including us humans.  So, however old other stuff is ...the humans like you and me have only been here a short time.  And yes again, I do believe we were created.

How should we process all this ...

There is no shortage of information out there.  It used to be that we would have to go to school, buy books, or go to the library. Today, all we need is a small desk unit, a laptop, or handheld device.

With all that information ...what do we do with it??

I would think that quality over quantity holds true on many occasions ...but, people still are impressed with an abundance of material, finding comfort in numbers.

(https://thecowerofbabble.blogspot.com/)

Speaking of numbers, here are some for you:  (okay, you don't like numbers and dates ...so, I'll just give you one and let you look them up for yourself if that is your thing)

The 1700s has been coined as the Age of Enlightenment, followed by the Age of Revolution, and an Age of Progress.

Certain terms also became a big part of people's so-called enlightened minds.

• Rationalism: man's reasoning as the sole criterion for truth
• Empiricism: experience as the ultimate source of meaning
• Skepticism: the truths of past knowledge must be replaced, as new questions demand new answers
• Deism: those who do believe in a Supreme Being, must conclude that the past is no longer relevant to our present condition, wherein we must take charge.

There was doubt ...and often history, considered to be always slanted, developed into legend, which now holds no more value than most myths.  And the Bible was the target of much of this myth claiming.

Those like Voltaire advocated revolution to overthrow what he would suggest had become unhealthy society, and he mixed in a dose of distorted nationalism.  He also claimed science, reason, and tolerance was on his side.

Another approach, though it took a slightly different path, sort of led to the same unrest ...masked by a label of Romanticism, Rousseau put forth the claim that a person was naturally good, but that society was bad.  And it appeared as if his thoughts only led to rejecting what was, by replacing it with what was worse.

With Kant, Hegel, and Schleiermacher ...we saw the addition of idealism, the destruction of absolutes, and the elevation of feelings. And amid the ever changing waves of enlightenment, the tide changed.  People felt they were drowning in doubt, and were willing to grab onto anything to keep afloat.  This is where Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, and Herbert Spencer threw in their mix of ideas, mostly mixed-up.  And with evolution and "survival of the fittest" ...the view of materialism was of utmost importance, whether from a conservative (and self-preservation) point of view, or from a competitive (often opportunistic) standpoint. The competitive was usually veiled in socialism, with the classic slogan of "the greatest good for the greatest number".  

But, to get the greatest good for the greatest number ...they insisted that the old system had to be overthrown.  Once in control though, there was no greatest good ...and the goods were fully confiscated.

Up until that last paragraph, it looks all too familiar.  We don't seem to learn too well from history ...as it appears we are going through the same sad repetitive steps that Europe did, leading up to World War I. How can we not see this??

What do we feel the chances are that we won't suffer similar consequences??  It's like playing with loaded dice in the casino of politics.

Who would argue that rolling dice is not a game of chance??

What are the chances that I would one day believe in evolution??

Could you convince me to believe in evolution??

No dice ...