From both perspectives the age of the earth is indeed a central issue. The two positions could not be further apart. According to those who believe in evolution the earth is around 4.54 billions years old. In contrast, those who follow the young-earth creation model see the evidence pointing to an earth which is around 6000 years old.
Time as a central issue for evolution is demonstrated in the geologic time scale of the earth and the geologic column. Biological evolution is incorporated into the whole framework with many millions of years deemed as being necessary for the vast changes from molecules to early life down to this present day. Observable evidence points to the increased likelihood of small changes accumulating over a long period, even though we cannot observe them in our own lifetime.
Creationists in contrast point to an increasing acknowledgment of rapid geologic processes in mainstream science and the clear demonstration that it is the right conditions rather than time which causes certain processes to take place. Creationists also insist that all the evidence does not require an old earth but can be accomodated into the time-scale of 6000 years when correctly interpreted.
Summary: Put simply, both sides regard time as a central issue both in terms of their separate schemes of earth and biological history but in terms of contrast between the two positions.
It would appear to be. Young-Earth Creationists take their position from The Bible, which appears to date the earth as only around 6000 years old. In contrast, geology, evolution and other sciences all point to the earth being billions of years old.
boiling point is always lower.
C-14 decays consistently over time, by estimating how much was in the sample to begin with and comparing it to how much is there now we can calculate how old the sample is. We can get good estimates for how much C-14 was there before by comparing samples dated by other methods
By checking the amount of rainfall to temperature and comparing it to the amounts that the different biomes receive.
flourine must gain one electron
Usually comparing brings about similarities. Contrasting brings differences.
Comparing is when you try to find the similarities between two things while contrasting youre trying to distinguish the differences.
*contrast. Comparing is seeing what two things have in common and contrasting is the differences
Comparing and contrasting are ways of looking at things to determine how they are alike and how they are different. Comparing involves identifying similarities and/or differences (e.g., apples and oranges are both fruit) whereas contrasting involves comparing two or more objects or events in order to show their differences (e.g., an apple has a thin skin that we can eat; an orange has a thick skin that we cannot eat).
compare and contrast mean the equalities and differences between what you are comparing and contrasting.
Babe, you first need to know what you are comparing and contrasting. Comparing - comparing the two together (what are the similarities and differences) Contrasting - things that are different (what does 1 thing have that the other one doesn't) Hope this helps =)
A good way to start a conclusion is by summing up how even though these two things ( whatever you are comparing and contrasting) had many similarity's and differences, they still did well. (or whatever your topic is about.)
By comparing and contrasting subjects the similarities and differences have already been discovered. Using outlines helps the information the brain has gathered during the comparing and contrasting process and makes it concrete, easy to remember, and easier to write an essay about because the road map is there already.
Change and continuity in the Middle Ages can be seen by comparing and contrasting the differences and similarities in particular areas of society.
Google "signal words" and you will get a list. Comparing and contrasting means you are looking for similarities and differences between two things.
When you can not contrast or compare.