There is no conflict between science and the Bible..one needs is a proper understanding how to merge science and the Bible.
"In a billion years [from now], it seems, intelligent life might be as different from humans as humans are from insects . To change from a human being to a cloud may seem a big order, but it's the kind of change you'd expect over billions of years." Freeman Dyson, Statement made in 1986, quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. [American mathematician.]"Slowness has really nothing to do with the question.
Third, evolution of living organisms into more advanced life forms by natural selection or mutations.
Did you know that you can be a Christian, and believe that the earth is billions of years old?
You can even believe in evolution and be a Christian.
But we know that the amount as a function of time-- so if we say N is the amount of a radioactive sample we have at some time-- we know that's equal to the initial amount we have.
We'll call that N sub 0, times e to the negative kt-- where this constant is particular to that thing's half-life.
We previously reported an event organized by the Adelaide, Australia, Chapter of Reasonable Faith where Dr Justin Payne, a lecturer within the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, sought to ‘disprove’ objections to long-age radiometric dating.
Any age calculated is based on multiple unprovable assumptions to match the long-age worldview.And it'll get a little bit mathy, usually involving a little bit of algebra or a little bit of exponential decay, but to really show you how you can actually figure out the age of some volcanic rock using this technique, using a little bit of mathematics.So we know that anything that is experiencing radioactive decay, it's experiencing exponential decay.Of course, that error estimate is complete nonsense.It refers to one specific source of error – the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis.Kevin Rogers submitted a comment to that article (reproduced below, edited to focus on substantive issues), to which Dr Jim Mason replies.