Compare And Contrast Christian And Secular Science

Scientists have found that the Earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun. As gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps, it became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System. Although scientists are very close to answering the question, they still continue to search for the exact answer to how the Earth was created. With all the evidence presented, it is hard to refute from scientific theories. This becomes cumbersome to many religions because in their eyes God has always been the creator of the Earth.

The Masoretic text translated gives exact same number of Generations of Genesis. The Septuagint number varies. Both Old and New Earth agree with some facts that observes present nature of Rocks. They differ with the un-observed past and the facts viewed from history. Scientist tries to use historical reconstruction of the universe and they also use data research and analysis of empirical science. Our text book says “Historical reconstruction, however legitimate, is a totally different enterprise”.

Many Christians believe that the age of the earth is a side issue, of non doctrinal importance, that one can believe in an old or young universe. The Christian apologist William Lang Craig believes that it hurts Christianity when Christians hold to a young earth position (Craig holds to a local flood as many other Christian apologist and Christian). The reason they give is that it is not scientifically possible, others have posited that it hurts the gospel message. Others have said young earth believers unwittingly damage Christianity 's

Until the early 1900's, scientists used several methods of measurement in their efforts to determine the age of the Earth. They studied sedimentation and erosion, stratification (with fossil evidence), measured the salinity of the oceans, and used thermodynamics to determine loss of heat since the Earth's beginning. Each of these approaches yielded estimates that the Earth was anywhere from 24 to 100 million years old.

Young- Earth view point on the age of earth is based on not only science but the Bible as well. There try to combine the two areas in an effort to present the true age of the earth. One of the areas they use is how long it takes for material to harden. They present

8. Is it important to know exactly how old the earth is? Why or why not?

The old-Earth evolution and young-Earth creation debate has been one that has gone on for centuries. Each viewpoint seeks to give an answer to life’s most difficult questions or origins and how the Earth came to be what it resembles today. While the Young Earth viewpoint has remained constant and unchanged throughout the centuries the Old Earth view seems to be continually evolving as new discoveries tend to discredit previous assumptions. One certainty is that both viewpoints take a dogmatic stance against each other in regards to the interpretation of scientific evidence. The purpose of this paper is to compare old-Earth and

Dating the rocks of the Grand Canyon is a scientific way to find out the age of this mysterious landmark. The age of the Earth and the Grand Canyon is a question both of a biblical interpretation and scientific investigation. It can be viewed by an old earth creationist and young earth creationist. The two creationists have a difference of opinion concerning the formation and age of the Grand Canyon rocks.

What I mean is that I believe when Ellen White says 6000 years, it is pretty close to 6,000 years. Clearly, it is not exactly 6,000 years as the date of 4,004 BC which this theory was originally based on clearly puts us over 6,000 years at this point. However, plus or minus 1,000 years seems to be in the concept of near when concerned with the broad concept that Ellen White says that the earth is about 6,000 years old. I do not ascribe to the earth being 9,000 or 10,000 years old. When Ellen White definitely says 6,000 years several times I do believe it is close around this general timeframe put

In 1820 another French man named James Fourier took the next step in estimating the Earth’s age. He accounted for the fact that the Earth is still hot in its core and using mathematical techniques that he developed and we still use today for time-varying phenomena, came up with a number too staggering foe him to write down. He did however leave us his equations and it is easy to plug in the same numbers and get the answer that he could not say, which comes out to be 100 million years. (Gribbin, 16)

Meredith Kline, from Westminster Theological Seminary proposed that Genesis should be interpreted metaphorically and not literally like most of us do. Old Earth creationists believe that scientific evidence cannot be overlooked. Scientists use the method of radiometric aging from meteorite material to determine the age of Earth. Fossils were found that are much older than a few thousand years, for example dinosaurs.

Before the discovery of radiometric methods to determine the age of the Earth, the first few attempts were off by thousands of millions

The first position is that of young earth creationism. Additionally, this is what most people mean when referring to “creationism.” This is primarily due to the fact that the creationists visible in the public eye during the creation-evolution debate were most likely to hold young earth creationist views. Additionally, the terms “recent earth” or “recent creation” have been used to refer to this same position. These terms clearly define their position as one in which the creation of the world occurred somewhat recently, that is, the world is young. However, it obviously doesn 't provide us with much information beyond that. To begin with, how young is the world? In order to help answer this and other questions concerning young earth creationism, biologist and philosopher of science Paul Nelson and philosopher John Mark Reynolds, both fellows of the Center for Science and Culture under the Discovery Institute, present with their viewpoint

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.

For decades the age of the Earth has been a major conflict between science and religion, but why is it such a big conflict? If, in the year AD 1600, an individual had asked an educated European how old the planet Earth was and to recount its history, the response would have been that it was about 6000 years old and that its ancient history was given by the biblical account in Genesis (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). If one asked the same question of an educated European in AD 1900, one would have received a totally different answer (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). The answer would have been the Earth was ancient, there had not been a Noachian flood, and that the species of life had not been fixed over the history of Earth (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). In short, Genesis was an allegory and not literal history (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). This brings up the different views between “young earth creationists” and “old earth creationists” and those that support an infinite universe. The problem today is each side contains major valid points of evidence of both biblical and scientific, on the age of the planet Earth.