Nebular Hypothesis Vs. Six Day Creation

The story of creation begins with Genesis 1 and 2, it explains how the world and it’s living inhabitants were created from God’s touch. From Genesis 1 we see how the sky, seas, land, animals, and mankind were created. However Genesis 2 focuses more on the first of mankind, known as Adam and Eve and how they are made to be. In this paper I will compare Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and what the main idea for creation is in each one, however in my opinion there is no contradiction between the two. Genesis 2 merely fills in the details that are "headlined" in Genesis 1.

The Solar System is complex. It is unknown to scientists how the Solar System originally began, but there are many hypotheses that suggest the start of the Solar System. Three common suggestions to the beginning of our Solar System includes, the Nebular hypothesis, Protoplanet hypothesis, and Planetesimal hypothesis. The Nebular hypothesis was proposed by Pierre-Simon de Laplace. He used forces such as Law of Conservation of Angular Movement, and centrifugal forces to describe his hypothesis. The Protoplanet hypothesis was proposed by Carl von Weizsäcker and Gerard Kuiper. The Planetesimal hypothesis was proposed by Forest Moulton and Thomas Chamberlin.

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”.

This is a comparative essay and its purpose is to compare old-Earth and young-Earth viewpoints on Dating the rocks of the Grand Canyon. There are different views on this and no scientific method that can prove (completely) the age of the universe or the earth. There are the use of different types of calculations that can provide some guesses on the age of the earth. Many things need to be assumed such as a beginning date and the speed of change along with varying increases and decreases of material over time. “Young-Earth Creationism” (YEC) is based on a precept that earth and the universe were created by God, only 6,000 years ago in six days. Their position is that by examining geological records the scientific details of

L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Missouri, 2000.

It has been known for well over a century now that the Earth’s core, mantle and the crust make up the basic structure of the Earth. However, there is some controversy over how and when the Earth produced its core, mantle and crust. In this essay, I will first discuss about the formation of the Early Earth and its Moon, then about the methods used to pinpoint the age of the Earth. Other than that, I will also expand on core and mantle formation, as well as the eventual production of the continental crust.

The discovery of water in the Orion Nebula will undoubtedly provide the basis for further study. More specifically, it will prompt scientists to search for water in other regions of space at different stages of star formation. Then, if water is present in each, it may suggest that "the oceans of Earth are older than even the planet that now contains them." 7

The age of the earth, in the eyes of scientific creationism, is calculated first by creating a genealogical table. Starting with Adam, the man considered to be the first human, the genealogy should be studied until the birth of Christ. This will give you the approximate age of the earth. However, there is another controversial topic: the length of the day. Scientific creationism believes that the length of the day in Genesis chapter one is a literal 24 hour day, however there are other theories that the day might be longer and may not even be confined within the human realm.”

I agree with you that there are many concepts that can account for a young-Earth creation. You mentioned a few, such as sediment; rocks; fossils; and the sun, all of which indicate that they have not been around for a very long time. Most young-Earth Creationists believe that the Earth has only been around between 6,000 but no more than 10,000 years (“What is Young Earth Creationism,” 2017).

The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the apparent similarities and differences of geologic time billions of years vs. thousands of years. No exact dating technique currently exist that can accurately date the age of the Earth and the universe. The irony of this is that it takes a known time to set as a baseline and any results from computations that necessarily include making postulations about the past. The beginning time of a clock must be predictable, and the speed of the clock can change after some time. There is no independent characteristic measurement against which these presumptions can be verified. Depending on one's faith, education and intuition we are left with mere speculation as to the actual starting point of

Life has continually perplexed and fascinated individuals since the dawn of mankind. The subject’s complexity is so great even over the course of human existence only a minute fraction of its mysteries have been unraveled. A phenomenon which has always intrigued scientists is the origin of life on Earth, and in recent years significant advancements have been made in the understanding of this enigma. This essay will briefly outline two theories regarding life’s origin on Earth to further comprehend why an explanation for this phenomenon has been so difficult to reach.

The “young earth creationist” perceptive is the result of a historical-grammatical reading of the description of the early Earth in the Bible or the Islamic Qur’an, which both contain similar accounts of a six-day creation, Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and Noah’s flood (Biblical

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

Soon after the birth of earth, it was a very different place from the one we know today.

The Big Bang theory is currently the most prevailing theory that explains the formation of Earth roughly 13 billion years ago. Substantial scientific research and theories are in agreement that when Earth was born, conditions on Earth was harsh. Due to nuclear fusion, Earth was very hot. One theory suggest that the heat of Earth evaporates the water which forms clouds and subsequently leads to rain. As Earth cooled, gravity traps the water collected and oceans started to form. Another theory suggested that oceans were formed by comet containing frozen H2O colliding with Earth. Coupled with intense tectonic activity cause by volcanic eruptions, constant bombardment by meteorite and the absence of a protective ozone