Not exact matches
We are, in our daily work, doing the work
of evolution, or, as the Jesuit
scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., put it best, «we are all collaborators in
creation.»
The
scientists applied light from various sources, including the sun and a lamp, to a solution containing the quantum dots, which led to the
creation of free radical atoms and caused the solution's acrylate monomers to link.
According to History.com, the «first workable prototype
of the Internet came in the late 1960s with the
creation of ARPANET, or the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network,» and the online world as we know it today really did not take on its form until 1990, when Tim Berners - Lee, a computer
scientist, invented the World Wide Web.
Your Customer
Creation Equation: Unexpected Website Formulas of The Conversion Scientist ™ This book will uncover your unique customer creation
Creation Equation: Unexpected Website Formulas
of The Conversion
Scientist ™ This book will uncover your unique customer
creation creation formula.
Do you know the mathematical impossibility that even one
of these could randomly come into existance?Let alone all
of the building blocks required for just a single simple cell to come together to form any type
of living thing?There sure should be some blobs
of fossilized transitions if evolution could happen.You people are real smart why don't you quit bashing Christians and quit believing the garbage you have been fed, and look up the evidence put forth by the
Creation Research people.They have in fact proven creation down to a cellular level.Unlike evolution scientists who have no answers, but cleverly devised fables.Evolution is not even a very good fairy tale.Even if I didn't believe in God, Evolution is such a fools explanation of the origin of man that it takes just that to even consider it true.I understand though that you athiests will believe anything that allows you to love your sin and hatred of the one t
Creation Research people.They have in fact proven
creation down to a cellular level.Unlike evolution scientists who have no answers, but cleverly devised fables.Evolution is not even a very good fairy tale.Even if I didn't believe in God, Evolution is such a fools explanation of the origin of man that it takes just that to even consider it true.I understand though that you athiests will believe anything that allows you to love your sin and hatred of the one t
creation down to a cellular level.Unlike evolution
scientists who have no answers, but cleverly devised fables.Evolution is not even a very good fairy tale.Even if I didn't believe in God, Evolution is such a fools explanation
of the origin
of man that it takes just that to even consider it true.I understand though that you athiests will believe anything that allows you to love your sin and hatred
of the one true God.
Why not let theologians and philosophers debate the WHYS
of Creation, and leave it to
scientists to puzzle out the HOWS?
«
Creation» seems to magically conform to whatever seems closest to it, not so much in mainstream science, but anything some reputable
scientist might have said that might serve to give the idea a bit
of cover.
Mr. Mastropaolo's problem is that even considering his wager would make a
scientist seem, well, less than serious.There's this too: is there a standard interpretation
of the Bible's
creation myths?
There is no such thing as a
creation scientist, because the premise and bias preclude use
of the scientific method.
[6] Although many young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in the development
of creation science, an endeavor that holds that the events as - sociated with supernatural
creation can be evidenced and modeled through an interpretation
of the scientific method, the consensus among
scientists is that
creation science is unscientific in both conception and methodology.
In fact, there have been a large number
of scientists throughout history who have made major scientific discoveries that have shaped so much
of our knowledge, and they worked out
of desire to learn the truth about the origin and nature
of God's
creation.
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..
This attitude has also been held among
scientists until recently, when the creationist pressures on public education and policy became so threatening that some
scientists founded a new journal,
Creation / Evolution, a «Committee
of Correspondence» and a
Creation / Evolution News letter, aimed at defending evolutionary science and dismantling creationist arguments.
Some
of Michelangelo's best known works may bear hidden messages suggesting that the human brain is among God's greatest
creations,
scientists say.
As it happens, I coined the original slogan in an attempt to keep together the western environmentalists and the Third World economists and church leaders; and
of course I frowned when, subsequently, «the integrity
of creation» was substituted, an expression which
scientists I know find meaningless.
I have much more respect for someone who owns up to that rather than trying to convince me and everyone else that there is evidence for
creation, geologic evidence
of a worldwide flood,
scientists are part
of a conspiracy, evolution is a faith etc. etc. etc..
(this ad is supported by a believer who is not a religious «crazy», who does not go to church every Sunday, but also does not believe in «non-belief» and is also not a scientific physicist or whatever kind
of scientist who dreams
of mimicking
creation of man someday).
It's only after we're older once we've had notions pounded into our heads that we can't or shouldn't learn from this or that, that we lose our ability to appreciate all
of God's
creations and see God's hand (poetic term not literal) in all things (or worse, some have been so blinded as to see it in nothing, as they hide behind their cold scientific idols, losing the same wonder that got the
scientists there to start with)
Here's an announcement sure to get some
scientists talking: An outspoken creationist is offering thousands
of dollars to anyone who can scientifically disprove the Biblical
creation story.
I could take your post, go through and replace every one
of your references to evolutionist
scientists with a reference
of mine to
creation scientists and it would read the same way.
So what does that tell all our genius «
creation scientist» friends??? That maybe a literal translation
of the Bible isn't possible?
This made me think the other day
of the story
of a group
of scientists, 9 PhD - s from Harvard, Yale, etc., who have formed the Institute for
Creation Research in Dallas.
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.
These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one
of the very few Australian
creation «
scientists» who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.
Well, every
creation «scientist» needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific
creation «
scientist» needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort
of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in
Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific
Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.
It has been suggested by some
scientists and theologians that this provides a confirmation
of the religious doctrine
of creation.
This appreciation
of God's
creation should be clearly distinguished from alternative views
of the relation
of religion to the work
of the research
scientist.
Johnson styles himself a «theistic realist» — while distancing his positions from that
of the «fundamentalists» and «
creation scientists,» he accepts the name «creationist»»:
He has provided all the evidence that
scientists now use to piece together the inner workings
of his
creation.
And the Fundamentalists continue to insist that the STORY
OF CREATION in Genesis is literally true in every detail, in spite of the fact that 99.9 % of all scientists reject it as a myt
OF CREATION in Genesis is literally true in every detail, in spite
of the fact that 99.9 % of all scientists reject it as a myt
of the fact that 99.9 %
of all scientists reject it as a myt
of all
scientists reject it as a myth.
God has written two books - the book
of sacred scripture and the book
of creation, the book
of his word and the book
of his world - and whilst theologians gaze through the window
of sacred scripture
scientists gaze on the same scene through a different window.
Beyond such considerations, however, the task
of marrying the Church's teaching regarding the
creation of man with the field
of palaeontology falls tophilosophers to contemplate, theologians to speculate on and
scientists to observe and theorise about.
Whatever the subject» from
creation to the politics
of abortion, from the agreements and disagreements among
scientists and theologians to the prevailing attitudes toward war, this conversation was always passionate and frequently brilliant.
Yet, time aside, the order
of the
creation account in Genesis is exactly the same order that
scientists put together the history
of our world.
CREATIONIST: Here's a list
of scientists that believe in
Creation.
«everything came from spontaneous
creation» nice try stephen,
scientists can't even explain how a human being, being a lump
of protein got its extremities moving without getting jacked to an electric plug.
(i) there is a worldwide conspiracy
of corporations, research insti.tutes, universities, colleges and academic publications, including all their tens
of thousands
of scientists, professors, editors, reviewers, and support staff, to deny
creation science;
In his recent book God,
Creation, and Contemporary Physics, Mark Worthing calls attention to two kinds
of thinkers in the world
of religion and science: the
scientist - theologians and the «ordinary» theologians who make no claim to scientific credentials.
Scientists can dig to their hearts delight and Christians can speculate for 6 days and 6 nights none
of which changes the purpose
of creation.
Scientists are trying to explain the
creation of our universe, but do so from the position that before expanding it was a hot dense mass.
Scientists have researched a critical point --- > physical building blocks
of the universe have gradually vanished; that is, atoms and quarks no longer seem solid at all but are actually clouds
of energy, which in turn disappear into the void that seems to be the source
of creation.
Dr De Young is a
creation scientist who's work has been largely discredited from the scientific community because
of his clear bias in his work.
Amen.The thing is too many people from both sides try to disprove the other,
Scientist (well some) will say there is no God Ala Hawkings here and then some believers will say that evolution or anything pertaining to science that they don't understand is false.I don't believe that science and God are mutually exclusive.For me personally science helps to explain a lot
of things regarding
creation, almost like giving me a window into how creative God is.I believe that God uses science to show us how awesome he is.To me science does not disprove Gods existence it actually reaffirms it on a human logic level, for me.You may disagree, that's fine, but this is just how I see it.
Scientists accused him
of trying to inject god into the
creation of the universe and laughed him out.
«Mad
scientist» narratives can also show us the dangers
of giving in to self - idolatry and attempting to supplant God in matters
of life and death,
creation and destruction.
An American medical man,
scientist, and philosopher, Prof. Richard H. Overman, has lately written a careful study
of the scientific field from this perspective, applying it to the Christian concept
of creation.
If anyone were to be given the grace to understand the «how»
of creation it would be, not a
scientist, but a mystic
of a very high order indeed and the only one in this category we have so far is Moses.
With Chauhan's work as a celebrated chef and Morse's reputation in Tennessee as being the «mad
scientist» brewer, the focus
of Mantra is on the
creation of unique flavor characteristics that are food - friendly with the nuances and subtleties becoming conversation topics, much like a fine wine.
This interest led to enlisting hundreds
of citizen
scientists for the
creation of the highly regarded Massachusetts Breeding Bird Atlas 2 and two State
of the Birds
of Massachusetts reports.
As the use
of big data becomes increasingly effective and popular, more universities are forming groups and subgroups that focus on big data problem solving, which in turn is spurring the
creation of new employment opportunities for
scientists with expertise in this arena.