Sentences with phrase «in creation theory»

Not exact matches

Strict content creation guidelines and a rigid course format have helped Udemy keep the quality of its content offerings high, even though in theory, anyone can create one.

The Big Bang Theory represents the creation event in scientific terms, and everything since has been evolution.

Arrogance in our culture, due to our higher intelligence, was injected by the theory of creation introduced by Ibrahim (Abraham) thousands of years ago.

In a cosmological sense, you are right, since cosmology theory can not adequately explain the origin of evil, as it does not recognize an ex-nihilo first creation.

He has shown a lack of reasoning in this regard, following along the lines that accepting creation means that basically a person is «stupid» and that educated people believe in this theory.

Kind of the same way «Faith» is a tool and «Creation» the theory... Bottom line, our country and everything great about it was founded in freedom of religion.

You were making reasonable sense up until your sentence beginning with, «Kind of the same way «Faith» is a tool and «Creation» the theory»; then it all just went down in flames.

I assume you have accepted the Big Bang theory of creation - that the entire universe came into being in one instant.

I bring to this issue of relatedness and separatism a blending of my own particular interests in feminist theory, identity formation, and the dynamics of creation.

Similarly, Kekes (a nonbeliever) claims, religious theories that posit the goodness of creation run aground: The «very existence of evil... constitutes a reason against believing in a morally good order.»

«The creation story is taught in science and there is no evidence that pupils learn scientific theories about the origin of the Earth.»

Most of the 350 - plus books written by «creation scientists» consist in large part of discussions of the supposed errors of evolutionary teaching, reviewing vast amounts of technical scientific data and theory, challenging this or that piece of evidence, method of dating or use of data, while producing evidences and counterarguments of their own in favor of a young earth, recent humanity, worldwide flood, etc..

Science was created by God to observe and gain knowledge about Gods creation... Evolution like I said is still only a theory still unproven and still looks silly in the eyes of science

I agree in theory with what you are saying, (and with what Tony says in his comment) about the natural world helping us understand God's relationship with His creation.

It is a Christocentric thesis, which includes creation and Incarnation in one great theory of the love of God that underlies all existence.

The special logic of this theory, after all, is that the Christian philosopher — having surmounted the «aesthetic,» «ethical,» and even in a sense «religious» stages of human existence — is uniquely able to enact a return, back to the things of earth, back to finitude, back to the aesthetic; having found the highest rationality of being in God's kenosis — His self - outpouring — in the Incarnation, the Christian philosopher is reconciled to the particularity of flesh and form, recognizes all of creation as a purely gratuitous gift of a God of infinite love, and is able to rejoice in the levity of a world created and redeemed purely out of God's «pleasure.»

But, in simple terms, his theory of spontaneous creation implies an overall more grand design — in that the life instructions could not have been created by life itself, but came from somewhere.

While all evidence, logic and reasoning point to a Creator and absolute truth, you prefer to hide behind relativism and a theory of evolution which does not, in fact, describe the creation of the universe at all, or why concepts of good and evil or morality exist.

The quotation from Romans 8 on the project's homepage — «For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God» — really is central to the biblical picture of redemption and really has been neglected in both theory and practice.

how the hell does the big bang theory lend support of a «creator»???? Yes creation occurred in it's literal definition, but how / whom / is unknown.

For example, the Bible says that time was created by God when He created the universe.19 Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, demonstrating that time began at the formation of the universe.20 Of course, the biggest coup of the Bible was to declare that the universe had a beginning21 through an expanding universe model.22 The New Testament even declares that the visible creation was made from what was not visible and that dimensions of length, width and height were created by God.23 In addition, the Bible refuted steady - state theory (saying that the creation of matter and energy has ended) 24 long before science made that determination.

While the old testament and the bible (as in the new testament) refer to the creation of the heavens and earth (as well as the Quran for Muslims), I find it humbling that the Quran went even further to attest to the WAY this creation took place (in other words the Big bang theory is a testament to this verse).

... So all this author was pointing out is that the theory of the big bang in no way refutes or is in conflict with a theological belief of creation, as in, «In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth» or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreatioin no way refutes or is in conflict with a theological belief of creation, as in, «In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth» or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreatioin conflict with a theological belief of creation, as in, «In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth» or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreatioin, «In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth» or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreatioIn the beginning god created the heavens and the earth» or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreation.

Hence, it is not uncommon in Christian political theory — particularly contemporary Christian political theory — to reject the concept of a universally known justice via creation ordinances and turn, instead, to the notion of «redemption ordinances.»

Evolution is the only theory that is currently doubted even though there is a lot of observation and experiments that prove it is true... because of the creation story in the Bible (even though there are two conflicting creation stories in the Bible).

The consensus in the scientific community was that the universe was always just sort of there until additional discoveries led to the Big Bang theory of creation which implicitly (if not explicitly) acknolwedges a beginning.

I recall reading an article on this theory of organic creation that estimated it would take 10 to 15 times longer, in a best case scenario, than the age of the Universe which is currently estimated at 14.6 billion years.

Thornton's vision both of the Trinity and of the relation of the three divine persons to creation is closely akin to my own hypothesis, as will be evident later in this article, There are, however, significant points of difference between the two theories.

In contrast to the main drift of the modern Western tradition, which asks how we can reconstruct or represent things within us and concludes that the activity of reconstruction or representation is almost wholly a matter of our own creation and projection, the theory of value and valuation suggests a different question.

The theory that each occasion creates itself by realizing an aim internal to it, however, requires that the germ of this aim be initially established at that spot in the temporal world by God; otherwise the occasion's self - creation could never commence, since nothing can come from nowhere.

The revealed account of creation mentions only the «dust of the earth» as material cause; there is no certain scientific doctrine to the contrary; therefore there is no reason to abandon a «literal» interpretation of Genesis, all the more so as the history of the theory of evolution shows that this tends to be regarded in a radically materialistic way as a complete explanation of man's origin, and so involves theses which are certainly heretical.

This is one side of the picture; in its theological aspect it emphasizes the absolute authority of God over His creation, and in its ethical aspect suggests a deterministic theory of man's actions.

Hello Derp (my ignorant responder) Since you enjoy stereotyping so much and compare God to big foot, unicorns, aliens and horned beasts and since you claim to be superior in intelligence then explain how everything that pertains to life and creation and what has been and is happening now and what will be is clearly explained in the Bible in full detail while your beliefs are based on theory?

Athanasius puts it succinctly in section two of On the Incarnation «In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own tastin section two of On the Incarnation «In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own tastIn regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own taste.

The point is illustrated by the logic which the National Academy of Sciences employed to persuade the Supreme Court that «creation - scientists» should not be given an opportunity to present their case against the theory of evolution in science classes.

In a sense, Christ provides the grand unifying theory long sought by physicists, since creation unfolds within the Word's dynamic and personal assumption of human nature, «the microcosmos».

But the Jewish belief in creation does not possess the character of a theory to explain the universe; instead, it is the expression of the consciousness that man in his whole existence in the world is dependent upon God.

«The creation record is factual, historical, and persp -LSB--RSB- icuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.»

To deny the doctrine of creation ex nihil is to limit God's sovereignty, as happens in the various theories which make God himself part of the evolutionary process.

Anyway movie does a great job of demonstrating that through this theory creation and the scientific time lines actually line up and in fact both are correct.

Science And The Magisterium, A New Controversy His Eminence Cardinal Schonborn managed to spark off a media storm recently when he published an article in The New York Times (Finding Design in Creation», 7 July 2005) on the subject of Catholic doctrine and the theory of evolution.

«-LSB-...] When, in our own time, we discuss the reasonableness of the faith, we are discussing precisely the fact that reason does not end where experimental discoveries end, it does not end in positivism; the theory of evolution sees the truth, but sees only half of it: it does not see that behind this is the Spirit of creation.

The second principle of the chaos theory is that while God originally created a beautiful and orderly universe that functioned in beautiful symmetry, once free agents used their freedom to rebel against God, many elements of God's creation spun out of control, that is, they no longer work in coordination with all the other parts of God's creation.

No, God is intimately involved in our daily lives, but this first point of the chaos theory simply argues that God is such a believer in having true relationships with His creatures, that He gave us true and genuine freedom within creation, so that we can choose to love and serve Him (or not).

It is commonly believed that Darwin's theory of evolution has disproved the Biblical account of creation in general, and individual creation of species in particular.

«We have reached the end of an avenue of inquiry where we know that just as we have determined that the perpetual motion machine is impossible, so the creation of our universe, life on this planet, and natural selection preserving purely random genetic mutations in a population are wholly insufficient as adequate theories of how we got to where we are today without some «external to our known universe» influence.

Darwin then distinguishes his «plan of creation» from the belief in «special creations» by drawing on a dual causation theory developed by Thomas Aquinas.

The theory of the «creation» of the universe most commonly held by physicists is that of an initial «Big Bang», a sort of explosion of matter — energy in which time and space themselves began.

the Big Bang theory (which postulates that, soon after the creation of matter and energy, an explosion began the expansion of the universe), to the hydrologic cycle, to the classification of animals and plants, to medical and hygienic statements in the Torah, to environmentalist statements, to psychological and sociological observations

The account of creation as given in the Bible was considered discredited by the theory of evolution as first set forth by Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) in On the Origin of Species (1859) and popularized by Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 - 1895).