The great German Mathematician Grollmitzer was experimenting with differential calculus (aka Kalkuluos in that time) when his long time Russian friend Swares Konkarow gave him an inspiration. Grollmitzer was also a friend of a Chinese biologist, know as Diana Tulip in England, and together they discovered a mathematical equation for evolution and modern creation theory. So, in a way, there is mathematical evidence that supports the Modern Creation Theory. Thanks to Konkarow,Grollmitzer, and Diana.
The evidence for a literal 6-day creation comes primarily from a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account in the Bible. Some proponents argue that the Hebrew word "yom" (day) in Genesis refers to a literal 24-hour day. Additionally, the genealogies in the Bible are sometimes used to calculate the age of the Earth as around 6,000-10,000 years old.
There is no science creation story. There are scientific theories concerning the creation and development of the universe, the formation of the solar system and the earth and the emergence and evolution of life.
No. The 'Big Bang' is a scientific hypothesis for the creation of the universe, not a religious tradition. It could be harmonised with divine creation in general, but not with the biblical creation stories.
Scientists who contend that the biblical story of creation is false are following the philosophy of naturalism which specifically excludes creation as something which can be considered. This is rather interesting in the light of modern science which developed in an era where people believed in God and so also believed in as a consequence an orderly universe which could be understood and studied. In more recent times some scientists have sought to use the unscientific philosophy of naturalism which explicitly excludes the creator, when science cannot disprove God by any endeavor deemed to be scientific. Other scientists, although certainly in a minority, do not find any conflict whatsoever between the facts of science and creation. These scientists do not regard the creation story as made up. This demonstrates it is a philosophical position which causes people to regard the creatin story as made up. It is also a philosophical statement, not a scientific one to regard certain things as facts which are not at ll proven but which are open to question and debate such as the age of the earth. It is explicitly the alleged age of the earth, which in recent times has had much contrary evidence brought against it, which is open to question by such data but which is used to call into the question the view that the earth was created by God around 6000 years ago.
Scientists generally have no argument with the notion of creation, as long as it does not conflict with known scientific facts. However, creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that insists that science is wrong and that the earth was created exactly as its proponents believe the Bible literally says it was.The Bible itself is the greatest enemy of these creationists. First of all, there are two, incompatible creation stories in Genesis, at 1:1-2:4a and at 2:4b-20. Creationists ought to decide which creation story it is that they support - the first one, which states that man, both male and female, was created last of all living things, or the second story that says that Adam was created first, then all other living things, and then Eve. Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) says that pious readers, believing that the text cannot contain contradictions, ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories and tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman), but he says we must scrupulously avoid reading into the second story any facts or notions taken from the first (and vice versa) if we mean to understand each story on its own terms. Anything less than this can not be compared with science.The second creation story appears to place creation some six thousand years ago, yet science has shown that the world is approximately 4.54 million years old. Some creationists accept the great age of the world, and say that the 'day' of the first creation story is really intended to mean an indefinite period, even though experts in the Hebrew language say there is no reason to interpret the text in this way. And a problem with this is that the scientific creation of the world was never so simple and linear that it could fit the creation story, no matter how interpreted.The first creation story also suffers from the problem that creation is supposed to have occurred in an impossible sequence. As the early Church Father, Origen, had to say on this (On First Principles, 3.1.1): "Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of life' ..."Much of the evidence against creationism is the evidence for cosmology and evolution. There is so much evidence that science has the explanation for what really happened, that creationism must remain a convenient religious discussion only.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
A story with no evidence is called an anectodotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is basically hearsay and describes what people see and repeat. It is often not realiable.
Assuming you are talking about the Bible creation story fround in the first 2 chapters of Genesis: It may mean a number of different things. One thing it often means is ridicule - "You don't believe that do you?" And it may be less obvious, in that people will automatically discount the intelligence of a person who believes that stuff, since 'we know' and 'science has proved' that the creation story didn't happen. Secondly, it may mean that an intimidated person will seek to re-interpret the creation account to make it fit with modern science. This will of course make it mean something different than what it clearly says, in context. Thirdly, it may lead to confidence that the Bible is true from the very first verse. This is so because of the large amount of hard scientific evidence on this very issue, which favours belief in creation. Of course belief preceded the evidence and it is generally the very same evidence which evolutionists use to support their theory. The difference is the way the evidence is interpreted.
the story of creation of luzon
The belief in Creation is as old as humanity. It is a worldwide tradition (not theory) going back to the earliest evidence of human society. See also:Is there evidence for Creation?Can you show that God exists?Seeing God's wisdom
The 'First Cause Argument' is based on the biblical creation story, so it would be false logic and a circular argument then to use the creation story to support the First Cause Argument.For more information on the Bible creation story, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
This depends on what you define a theory and a law to mean. To a scientist, creation is a hypothesis. If there were good evidence to support the hypothesis, then it would become a theory.For a detailed discussion on the biblical creation accounts and modern views on them, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
In the Proto-Indo European creation-narrative, God was referred to as Dyeus-Pater (Sky-Father).As time passed, they became polytheistic and worshiped the sky itself (and/or the planets, sun, moon, etc.), and forgot that all creations are under God.See also:Did they believe in the One God?Is there evidence for Creation?
the story of evidence from the story
chinese creation story
Answer The Lutheran creation story is the Christian creation account found in the Bible primarily in Genesis.
The evidence for a literal 6-day creation comes primarily from a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account in the Bible. Some proponents argue that the Hebrew word "yom" (day) in Genesis refers to a literal 24-hour day. Additionally, the genealogies in the Bible are sometimes used to calculate the age of the Earth as around 6,000-10,000 years old.
There is no definitive evidence to support the existence of a carman Winston story. It is possible that it could be a work of fiction or a myth rather than a true story.