The chances of what you refer to as 'star dust' coming together, and binding/bonding, and in several millenia spawning an ecosystem that is extremely well conceived are so small that their happening by some sudden and random rush of events are low! Thus i can in some extent agree with you that the main flaw in the big bang theory is how entropy and chaos could be overcome and perfectly designed ecosystems arise!
However the thing that i find ludicrous in your posts is your adamant acceptance of the Earth being 6,000 years old!(And since you may try to say you did not say any such thing this is part of the post you put forth: I believe the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old - after Eden.)
I am not here to advocate God, or propose evolutionary theories! None of those goals are my objectives, thus do not think i am some fervent religious zealot nor some science oriented know-it-all(although in reality i am a science oriented know-it-all). My point was just to say that accepting that the Earth came into being 6,000 years ago is pure lunacy!
Simply so!
There are so many pieces of factual evidence that point to the Earth being far older than 6,000 yrs old (even if you discounted scientific dating that gives the age of the Earth as 4.55 Billion years). For example go and do a simply geological survey, and look at the different rock strata! The rocks were obviously set eons ago!
And just in case you change your argument (or someone else with your thinking) to just mean living life....or lets even make it more difficult for me and insist on just mammals.....the fact still remains that they were in existence millions of years ago!
Basically there is NO CHANCE the Earth came into being just a couple of thousand years ago! No chance.
However let me try and assist you with your theory! I once remember seeing this program (whether i believed or not is another matter altogether) where this person was saying that the 'days' used by God in creating the world were not to be taken in the literal sense.....maybe they were symbolic for 'ages' or something like that! Do i think that person was trying to 'cop out?' Maybe! But at the very least his train of logic made more sense (and he actually had some rather interesting points of view). The alternate viewpoints of adamantly insisting that the Earth is just several thousand years old is just plain silly! I am sorry to say so but any logical person would arrive to the same conclusion....that no matter whether you believe the Earth was born by a Big Bang, by an omniPotent Creator, or by feuding Alien Races; one thing is for certain......the Earth is MUCH older than 6,000 years!
By the way i would encourage you to read the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia, on the River Euphrates in modern Iraq; he lived about 2700 B.C.However the tale was a mythical epic of how he came to power, and one of the stories written in Summerian clay tablets depicted a 'worldwide flood' that covered the whole Earth! The funny thing is that this myth was written long before the Pentatauch (hence it is a predecessor to the biblical story of the Great Flood). Also it is 'interesting' that these Sumerian Gilgamesh stories were integrated into a longer poem, versions of which survive not only in Akkadian (the Semitic language, related to Hebrew, spoken by the Babylonians) but also on tablets written in Hurrian and Hittite (an Indo-European language, a family of languages which includes Greek and English, spoken in Asia Minor).
Many scholars attribute the flood stories of such diverse tomes as the biblical Genesis and even esoteric books like the Popol Vuh to adaptations of the Gilgamesh great flood story. And i feel you will not agree with this....but then how come the Gilgamesh epic was written long before the 'time of Noah,' and that it encompases the same tenets! And that one of the languages it was written in (Akkadian) is a semitic ancestor to what came to be known as Hebrew? You may not believe anything i post.....but there is something very weird here. And very 'interesting.'
The scriptures state in Gen Ch 2 V 4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God created the earth and the heavens."
Clearly the use of generations and day in this passage refers to an unspecified period of time - or an age of the earth's history, but human history appears to be no longer than the 6000 years...
Now, let's talk about Gilgamesh. It is predated by the Elba tablets by some 600 years. The names Adam, Eve, and Noah appear in these tablets. The creation account is much more similar to Genesis than the Babyloynian accounts. There is a good case to be made the the Bible contains the original story, and Gilgamesh is a corrupted version. Read "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by McDowell for more info.
I could be wrong. I am not the one claiming to know it all. My point has always been that of truth. I cannot prove what I believe, but neither can you. I only want to show all that the science in this subject is young and flawed. Old earth (over 100,000 to 500,000 years) has not been proven and is not fact. Many questions remain, for example, there have been over 300 objects found fossilized and aged at times and in places when and where man was not supposed to be here. Times aged at millions of years, along side and coexisting with creatures thought to be extinct millions of years before man. Could there be some explanation that does not disprove current thought? Sure. But it is not fact and anyone who portrays it as such is arrogant, stupid or both.