Rath said:
The first part isn't science because you're presenting an assumption without proof. You tell us that complex information requires an intelligent designer but you haven't given any proof for that statement.
As for the second part - the age of the universe is not 6 billion years, it's approximately 13.75 billion years. It is scientific as it is based on prediction, measurement and repeatability built on known scientific laws. If you're vaguely interested in how the calculation is done it's based on Hubbles laws. (1) All objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other (2) This doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. The only real assumption made in determining the age of the universe is that time is linear. Also how the hell is the age of the universe related to evolution? One's cosmology and the others biology - they're working on way different scales.
Edit: @Padib. There is already more than enough proof of evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics etc, that the Genesis account is clearly wrong. The earth simply isn't a few thousand years old. I find it hard to believe that you have an open mind to science if you still believe that it is. |
You display the typical characteristics of someone who just repeats what he's heard and doesn't use his brain. Let me show you what I mean:
''The only real assumption made in determining the age of the universe is that time is linear''
Yoau're wrong - big time. In order to calculate the distances between the galaxies, more information is required besides this relative proportion between distant galaxies. I'm so tired of people who can't reason and know next to nothing about real science decrie religion and then make statements like this.
So here: http://astro.wku.edu/astr106/Hubble_intro.html
And if you're too lazy to check then here's the part that shows you're wrong ''To determine a galaxy's distance, we must rely on indirect methods. For instance, one assumption used by Hubble, and other early 20th century astronomers, is to assume all galaxies of the same type are the same physical size, no matter where they are. This is known as "the standard ruler" assumption. To determine the distance to a galaxy one would only need to measure its apparent (angular) size, and use the small angle equation: a = s / d, where a is the measured angular size (in radians!), s is the galaxy's true size (diameter), and d is the distance to the galaxy.''
Not only that, but;#
1. There is no proof that red-shift is solely caused by relative velocity.
2. The relative velocities would not be constant since gravitation is an accelerating force. Therefore, to calculate the time one needs to know the rate of change of these relative velocities, and this is no simple physics problem.
3. We have yet to see 99% of what the universe is made of (another speculation btw), so we can't make accurate predictions about the evolution of the early universe - we can only do our best to guess.
So you can clearly see how scientists also speculate in order to make data fit to their beliefs.
