If evolution takes billion of years, and recent astronomy is dating the expansion of the universe closer to only 10,000 to 20,000 years old based on recent observations from the Hubble Telescope, would this mean that evolution was impossible?
33 comments
Yes, it would ... IF your assertion about recent astronomy was true. (Brilliant tactic, btw ... speak in hypotheticals, insinuate a lot of BS without actually having claimed it to be true, and then when someone goes off on you for spouting BS you have plausible deniability.)
Evolution would still be possible, but there would hardly be enough time for us to evolve from single-cell organisms.
We're only waiting for Hubble to make those observations...
"If evolution takes billion of years..."
I'd have to agree to the extent that perhaps for some, evolution may have to take billions of years to turn their DNA into a passing semblance of human decency, and you, MichaelS, could very well be one of those unfortunate cases.
Apparently we can now see to with in (looks for figure) 1/24000th of a second from the big bang, and by comparing it with the location and the speed of EMR we can detect how long ago it happened. (approx 12 billion years).
But that figure is dependent on theoretical physics that hasn't been fully proven.
So for a less accurate method we look at the speeds at which everything is moving away from us (via redshift) and it shows that everything was in one place 10 - 15 billion years ago.
However this age has been redefined recently and now is 13.73 bullion years (+ or - 120 Million years)
Source: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/basic_results/wmap5basic.pdf
There ya go. Defeated by a student with a web connection.
You can't really tell much about the universe by looking at a telescope.
Looking -through-, on the other hand...
Who was performing this "recent astronomy"? Ken Ham & Ray Comfort? No wonder they reached the wrong conclusion, they were looking through the wrong end of the 'scope.
Protip: point the BIG end at the sky, guys.
Possibly, yes.
If you made shit up with no regard for reality, would that affect your credibility?
Yes, that would also be true.
Well, technically bacterial life spawned as soon as the great meteoric bombardment stopped.
So it depends on the conditions of said life and planet.
Not to mention the quality of your BS regarding the age of the universe.
wouldn't matter, mutations and natural selection (thus evolution would still happen in the future, just the ancestry bit would be incorrect if we were created. but since you just made an astronomically epic fail, you're a retard.
If the universe was only 20,00 years old , the theory of evolution, geology, and every other science would need to be reconsidered.
IF is the operative word.
Fail cosmology much?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
> recent astronomy is dating the expansion of the universe closer to only 10,000 to 20,000 years old based on recent observations from the Hubble Telescope
The lower age limit on the universe is at least 13.7 billion years, since the furthest visible object is ~13.7 billion light years away.
Do you have any citation for that "recent astronomy"?
Evolution takes thousands of generations to present large changes, but is a continually ongoing process.
Evolution IS possible, as we have observed it in laboratories.
According to NASA, the Hubble Space Telescope has discovered a new cluster of galaxies (the astronomer on BBC Radio 5 last night stated that as galaxies have huge gravitational fields of their own, and thus can affect light, these effects can be used as lenses to focus further out ).
...oh, and Astronomy/Cosmology =/= Biology. Use of Bad Analogy. Your argument is invalid .
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
