Alot of mistakes were made in the early years of err.. how-old-stuff-is-ology. and these have been hard to iron out.
I'm not sure what the person in your link was trying to say about half lives but I would say these are one of the most accurate dating methods we have.
Just to check how old is the generally accepted age of the Earth by most christians?
Each embryo in the course of its development, is said to pass through a progression of abbreviated stages that resemble the main evolutionary stages of its presumed ancestors. Thus, in the case of the human embryo, recapitulation scenario goes something like this: 1) The fertilized egg starts as a single cell (just like our first living evolutionary "ancestor". 2) As the fertilized egg repeatedly divides it develops into an embryo with a segmented arrangement (the "worm" stage). 3) These segments develop into vertebrae, muscles and something that sort of looks like gills (the "fish" stage). 4) Limb buds develop with paddle-like hands and feet, and there appears to be a "tail" (the "amphibian" stage). 5) By about the eighth week of development, most organs are nearly complete, the limbs develop fingers and toes, and the "tail" disappears (the human stage).
At that point of the human baby's development (the point where it has "gills", is the DNA that controls what the "gills" look like similar to the DNA that controls the appearance of a fish's gills? If they are, then that part of the theory is correct. If not, the only explanation is that one Being made all creatures and decided to make some parts of them similar.
Hmm I wonder if people have stopped talking about this because the people arguing against Creationism have given enough evidence to persuade the other people. I seriously doubt it, but that's almost what it looks like. Well anyway, that was pretty spammy hunter. But, talo, that was also spammy. Neither of you really said anything relating to the topic and didn't contribute anything. I'll start this off again since the thread is dying. I believe in the Big Bang theory being started by a higher power.
I was just making fun of him. I have posted my ideas before on this topic and I have nothing else to say other than to reject other people's ideas. I usually don't post on threads that aren't on the first page. Maybe it died because everyone said what they wanted to on this topic. Too many zealots post that God is the answer to everything. Why think when you can just pick the easy, unprovable, answer?
Well that's exactly what religions are, the easy explanation for everything that can't be explained. I have nothing against religion, but when people start saying Gid is the answer for everything, it makes me mad. You can't prove it either way so they should just chill out a little. There's the principle of parsimony that holds that the simplest explanation for something is the most reasonable, unless strong evidence exists against the simplest explanation. Now you have to think, is the evidence of the Big Bang strong enough to disprove God? Do we know enough about it to rule out God entirely? I don't think so, we just can't rule anything out until we have no if's, and's, or but's. I've stated my belief on the matter many times, in fact just 3 posts above this one, so I won't restate it.
Why think when you can just pick the easy, unprovable, answer?
Because when you actually do think about the alternative (evolution, the big bang, and all that other stuff) you find that it is full of mistakes and senseless arguments.
Because when you actually do think about the alternative (evolution, the big bang, and all that other stuff) you find that it is full of mistakes and senseless arguments.
I don't know but a 6 billion year mistake for the time the universe to be created as evidenced by Uranium 238 dating in asteroids seems like an awfully big mistake on the part of Creationism.
Because when you actually do think about the alternative (evolution, the big bang, and all that other stuff) you find that it is full of mistakes and senseless arguments.
