Monday, April 8, 2019

Creation †Scientific View Vs. Biblical View Essay Example for Free

Creation Scientific View Vs. Biblical View canvasThe advancement of science has raised questions everyplace the biblical view of creation. A destiny of scientists argon now questioning the authenticity of the retentive-held beliefs about creation. According to Mark 106, Jesus said But from the setoff of the creation, graven image made them male and female. Also, John 11-3 says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. If the dates are added up as per the bible, Adam was created 6000 long date ago. Therefore, the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago. organic evolutionists, on the other hand, believe that the whole Universe and life itself arose by chance between 3 and 15 billion years ago. They came up with a guess c onlyed Big fringe Theory. The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific surmisal about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created former(prenominal) between 10 billio n and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic fusillade that hurled matter and in any guidances. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density.Physicists do not widely assent on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity. The term Big Bang is utilize both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubbles law) began calculated to be 13. 7 billion (1. 37 ? 1010) years ago ( 2%) and in a to a greater extent general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological range of a function explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory.From this model, George Gamow was able to predict in 1948 the existence of cosmic microwave backgrou nd radiation (cosmic background radiation). The CMB was discovered in 1964 and corroborated the Big Bang theory, giving it more credence. In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre was the commencement exercise to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red trip in far nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble prove experimental evidence to help justify Lemaitres theory.He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance. The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). The Big Bang Theory acquire its strongest confirmation when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.Creation theory according to Genesis 11 states, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Evolutionists believe that the total solar system was formed from clouds of gas and dust. If so, the Sun, planets and moon should be made of gas and dust. It has been proved scientifically that the sun is 98% hydrogen or helium. If we believe this theory, then the planets should domain the sun and the moon should orbit the planets. This is sure. Theory of Darwin further accentuated the developmentists theory.Charles Robert Darwin was an English naturalist who proposed and provided evidence for the scientific theory that all species have evolved over time from one or a few common ancestors through the process of natural selection. This theory was fully accepted by the scientific community in the 1930s, forming much of the footing of modern organic evolutionary theory. In modified form, Darwins theory remains a cornerstone of biol ogy, providing a unifying business relationship for the change of life.Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which golden traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less(prenominal) common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more believably to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation.Over time, this process can response in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of overbold species. Ironically, m any of the scientists in question did some early work on the mechanisms of evolution. Though biological ev olution of some sort had become the primary mode of discussing speciation within science by the late-19th vitamin C, it was not until the mid-20th century that evolutionary theories stabilized into the modern synthesis.Some of the historical scientists marshaled by creationists were dealing with quite different issues than any are engaged with today Louis Pasteur, for example, opposed the theory of spontaneous generation with biogenesis, an advocacy some creationists call as a critique on chemical evolution and abiogenesis. Pasteur accepted that some form of evolution had occurred and that the Earth was millions of years old. The contribution of famous scientists like Mendel and Avery laid the foundation for genetics. Gregor Mendels research revealed that pellucid traits were inherited in a well-defined and predictable manner.In the 1940s, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick, provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were encoded in DNA. Since then, the role of genetics in evolutionary biology has become increasingly central. many a(prenominal) fields of science have provided a wide range of evidence for evolution. The most prominent of these are fossil records, which can show the many life forms that have existed.The fossil itself reveals the organisms structure, and the age of the fossil reveals when its species existed. In addition, studies involving anatomical and genetic comparisons between present day species serve as evidence for evolution. Paleontology, the study of fossils, supports Darwins passkey idea that all living creatures are related. Fossils also provide evidence that accumulated changes over long periods have led to the diverse forms of life we see today. Strong evidence for evolution comes from analysis of homologic structures that no longer perform the same task.One example involves the comparison of the forelimbs of mammals. The forelimbs of a human, cat, whale, and bat all have strikingly similar bone structure. However each of these four animals forelimbs performs a different task. such a design makes little sense if they are unrelated and uniquely constructed for their particular tasks. The scientific explanation for such homologous structures is that all four animals shared a common ancestor, and that each has undergone mutations over the note of a large number of generations.These changes have resulted in slight modifications in the structure, so that each species has a forelimb adapted for a different task. This is what Darwin described as descent with modification. The main points of difference between the cardinal theories are If Creation is true there is a Creator, and there are rules given by God. If Evolution is true there is no Creator, and there are no rules. In fact, we make them up as we go along, according to the majority vote. If Creation i s true there is a purpose to life.If Evolution is true there is no Creator, and no purpose to life. We are evolving creatures. If Creation is true we are a fall race, and we need a Savior. If Evolution is true there is no sin, and we do not need a Savior. The scientific view of creation is more plausible than the biblical view. There are a lot of discoveries and inventions that have made the understanding of our earth, evolution of life and universe possible. However, scientists have a long highroad ahead of them to convince people. References 1) Wikipedia 2) Dr. Kent Horvind, Creation Science Evangelism.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.