Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN
If you go back through this thread I don't challenge the easily proven facts of so called evolution. There are many errors taught starting with billions and billions of years ago, this is not factual but a wild guess.
Evolution is not a multi part theory. You can't say that some parts of it are true but not others. That would be like saying "I believe in division in math, but not long division".
Evolution describes the change of species over time. The amount of time involved is irrelevant to how "True" the evolution of a species is. Evolution over 100 years isn't any more true than evolution over 1 billion years. So if you acknowledge evolution over short frames of time, then you acknowledge evolution itself. There are no degrees of belief.
The only problem you have is that your religious belief contradicts the observed age of the universe. But the irony is that evolution is not dependent on the age of the universe, and vice versa. Evolution doesn't address the age of the universe at all. It doesn't address the origin of the universe. The theory of evolution explains changes in existing
species. That's it. You're the one trying to attribute the age of the universe to Evolution. You're taking what you don't believe/understand, and incorrectly attributing it to evolution, when it's not a part of it.
Also, the age of the universe can be estimated in the billions by something as simple as the darkness of the sky at night. If the universe were actually only 6,000 years old, then space would not be dark at night. The sky would be equally as bright at night, as it is during daytime, because we would be able to see all existing light from the universe. Because of the calculated speed of light, all light in the universe would still be visible within 6,000 years of the beginning of the universe. Only because the universe has been expanding for 14+ billion years, can we look up at the night sky and see darkness. This little video explains the process: