Interesting stuff. I went to the link and it cited only one source, so i went there and it had no sources. So I'd have to do all the work to verify their claims. I will say, I have come across much of this before. If even one claim were true, it would seem to say coal is formed much faster than they figure, and/or intelligence has been around for WAY longer than they thought. I have said elsewhere, i dont make the assumption that intelligence, to this degree, is a novelty. Nor do I believe our current models of history (solar, human, planetary) are an accurate assessment. They HAVE to reject anomolous data otherwise their model would be falsified. Its the sad state of affairs. Its easier for them to imagine some new ad hoc hypothesis than to admit their models are wrong.
I suppose it may call into question the reliability of the dating method. Any which way, it would be damning to some model(s) IMO.
Don't be so gullible, esseff. I thought you were smarter than this. It's usually trotted out by young earth creationists, which is why it's surprising that you posted it. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/London_Hammer Good thing we have experts in the field who aren't so easily fooled.
I'm surprised you were surprised - but then, it's good to be surprised now and again. Creationists talk about Earth being about 7000 years old, where as if you read the article, you will see that it has humanity being much, much, older than that. Lays out some interesting ideas as to why. As with many things, there are of course differing opinions, with various proofs offered to validate or invalidate this or that, depending on the position one takes - nothing wrong with that - it's all good. In fact, posting it here doesn't claim anything other than giving blades a chance to consider that some things we just take for granted may not be quite as they seem, which is not a bad position for anyone to hold, unless you think we have it all figured out of course.
Well, aside from really large rabbit holes, or perhaps very small people, a little digging is good for us now and again.
Buy this book Holy Blood Holy Grail http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/holy-blood-holy-grail-michael-baigent/1100265989?ean=9780385338592
For a world that dwells "down the rabbit hole", there's nothing beyond people's abilities to believe and defend. Wait. Here's an expert on origins. Let's ask him.
It was an analogy on an analogy.. People talk about traveling down the rabbit hole, when you'll never really be able to travel down the proverbial rabbit hole without digging into it, without researching it. The majority of the time, if a person actually dug in (researched) the rabbit hole, they'd see that it is just an empty hole.
Great book. I recommend any creationist/Christian to read this. Actually I recommend this for anybody.
Aw c'mon man....everyone knows that the earth is only 2014 years old! And On January 1st, it will be 2015 years old.
Or they might find something that leads them in another direction. Either way, at least they went in and looked for themselves. Of course, if you assume these holes are going to be empty the majority of the time, you might decide there's no point in taking an open-minded look at all. It's interesting that you mention research, as if this is always the be all and end all of the journey. While it isn't always best to just accept what we're told, it is too easy for the thinking that is to be accepted to be shouting the loudest because this is what we're supposed to think. It isn't always possible to 'research' some things satisfactorily, but that doesn't mean one ought to conclude something either way. If we think we're always being shown the truth, or that there aren't other ways of seeing that are outside the common thinking, we'll just be acting as if we already know, which is what most people like to do, when in fact, we only think we do. Nobody ought to just believe what they're told, and yet they so easily do when they think there is 'proof'. Still just belief either way.
New ideas and ways of looking at things always come in from the fringe and if accepted by society, they work their way to the mainstream where they eventually die. ------
Way to completely overthink a simple analogy.. lol along with the assumption that people who raise an issue with a rabbit hole theory never dug into (researched) the theory. "Follow me down the rabbit hole." 'Nah, its nothing but an empty hole.' "You're not open minded! Why assume its not true?" 'Cause I dug out that rabbit hole years ago..' "I see.. well, you're still not open minded." 'Are you open to the possibility that it is false?' "Of course.. but I don't see an explanation that is better." 'Well here, here, and here. This explains that.' "Yeah ok, you closed minded dogmatic scientist.." That's usually how these rabbit hole discussions go.. cause almost anything that requires you to ask them to follow you down the hole is nothing more than an entertaining theory. A theory that is meant to entertain you.. not for you to entertain the theory.
Perhaps, so we can probably let go of the rabbit hole analogy now. Besides, I only used it because for some to consider these ideas, entertaining or otherwise, which they might not have come across before, they would need to suspend disbelief in order to do so. One doesn't have to look at anything considered 'out there' with a cynical hat on, just a skeptical one. Believe nothing, consider everything, then carry on with your life. Some of what it says is interesting. It is a long article, gathering together information, examples, from different areas. Not all of it is easy to debunk, unless you have a need to do so that is.