Creation

Try God the Creator, and it's not just a theory. If you mean where did it originate in the very beginning, the above answer is absolutely correct. If you mean the modern creation movement the answer is a little more complex. Many people have continued to believe in creation, despite the seeming triumph of evolutionary science among the scientific establishment. Many of the founders of modern science believed in the creator including Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Keppler and Galileo among them. These and many others like them down to this present day, saw no conflict between creation and true science, as indeed there isn't.

As far as the modern creation movement goes you would look at people such as Dr.John Whitcomb and the late Dr Henry Morris who co-authored "The Genesis Flood" in 1961 as being among the most important founders of the modern movement. Of course the evidence has always been the same and so the 'creation theory' is only putting forward the abundant evidence which already exists and interpret the data from a different perspective from those who believe in evolution.

God created the world. Full stop.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a view held by some Christians regarding the origin of the world that is based on the premise that God created the world exactly according to the stories in the first books of the Bible.

There are four main principles of process creation. These include system initialization, the execution of a process creation, a request to start a new process creation, and initiating a batch job.

Many schools, especially private and parochial schools, offer religion classes as part of their curriculum. Some public schools may also offer elective courses in religious studies or comparative religion. It is best to check with individual schools to see if they offer such classes.

Absolutely - it should be taught in classes pertaining to religion. There are many forms of creationism from many different religions. I think it is important for children to know about religions and creationism is part of the beliefs of some religious groups. I do not think it should be 'taught' but children should be taught of it. (There is a difference) That is just my opinion though and I respect the opinions of anybody who disagrees with me. And I encourage them to add their opinions.

As for teaching young earth creationism or intelligent design in science class - absolutely not. Neither belief has a shred of empirical evidence to back them up, are untestable, unfalsifiable, and unable to make predictions - therefore, they are categorically unscientific in nature.

Yes. It is in Britian, but i don't know about America or anywhere else. == Not in the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania it isn't. == If you meant Britain, no it's not taught in public schools. Evolution is. There are some private Christian schools in Britain that do teach the creationist view alongside evolution, but they are very much in the minority. == In the U.S., there is a Constitutional division between church and state. This prevents the teaching of creation ideas in public school because creation ideas are based in religion. This has set the stage for a public fight over the issue, the idea being that some Christians believe that creation ideas should get some "air time" in public schools. There are a number of other questions on WikiAnswers that deal with the issue. Answer Generally, creationism is not taught in public schools due to issues such as conflicts between different beliefs and religions.

No, it is not physically possible for a person to have two tongues. The human body is designed to have one tongue, which is a strong muscle responsible for activities like tasting, swallowing, and speaking.

Young Earth creationism asserts that the earth and universe were created by God in a literal six days about 6,000-10,000 years ago, as described in the Bible, whereas Old Earth creationism accommodates scientific dating methods and allows for a much older age of the earth and universe, but still believes in a divine creator. Both views seek to reconcile scientific and religious beliefs, but differ in their interpretations of the age of the earth and universe.

In the Visayan creation myth, the first man is Sikalak and the first woman is Sikabay. They emerged from a bamboo stalk and became the ancestors of the Visayan people.

Humans often play a central role in Creation stories, representing a connection between the divine and the physical world. They are often portrayed as the ultimate creation, placed in a position of stewardship over the earth and tasked with maintaining harmony between the spiritual and material realms. In many traditions, human actions in these Creation stories also serve to explain the origins of certain aspects of the world, such as natural phenomena or societal structures.

The Maranao creation story begins with the supreme god, Maguindanao, creating the heavens, earth, and all living things. It is believed that Maguindanao tasked the first man and woman, Tamama and Fata Morgana, with populating the earth and maintaining balance in nature. The story emphasizes the importance of harmony between humans and the natural world.

Yes, there are creation myths among the indigenous Papuan peoples of Papua New Guinea. These myths often involve stories of ancestral beings shaping the landscape, creating humans, and establishing social customs. These creation stories play a significant role in Papuan cultural identity and are passed down through oral tradition.

In Kikuyu mythology, the Supreme God, Ngai, created Gikuyu and Mumbi, the first man and woman, and placed them at the foot of Mount Kenya. They had nine daughters, who married the nine sons of the mythical creature called "Mumbi the Enchantress." From these marriages, the Kikuyu people are believed to have descended.

Yes, a culture's set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe is referred to as cosmology. Different cultures around the world have unique cosmologies that shape their understanding of existence and the world around them.

According to creationism, humans have been on Earth for approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years. This timeline is based on the belief that the Earth was created by a divine being in six days as described in religious texts like the Bible.

Humans have evolved over millions of years, with changes in physical traits like brain size and bipedalism. In more recent history, advancements in technology and medicine have influenced human populations, leading to increased longevity and changes in lifestyle. Additionally, cultural factors have played a role in shaping human behavior and society over time.

No, each Aboriginal cultural group in Australia has its own unique creation story that explains how the land, animals, and people came to exist. These stories are passed down through generations and reflect the unique beliefs and traditions of each community.

I assume you speak of the true controversy that exists in anthropology. Basically this is an argument between " lumpers " and " splitters. " The lumpers want to lump all the various branches of hominids together in a tighter family, thus showing a ancestral progression that is able to be followed easily. The splitters cleave the various hominids onto many more species thus making it very hard to follow the ancestral trail. This is not meant to explain all here, but to give one reason for the controversies in this area.

A mummy was found that scientists determined was related to all dead and living members of the human species Homo sapiens. According to the book of Genesis, Eve was the world's first mother and Adam the world's first father. So the mummy was given the symbolic name of 'Eve'.

Usually the notion of "people-first" or "person-first" language comes up when talking about people with physical and mental handicaps; you will want first to avoid the implication that sexual orientation or being transgendered are handicaps (they are not).

In general, the sexual orientation (gay/lesbian, straight, bisexual, etc.) or the transgender status of a person is irrelevant in most writing. In the past, mention of these characteristics was used to sensationalize. Nowadays, this kind of sensationalism is avoided because these characteristics are not usually relevant to the topic at hand. Thus, my first suggestion is to evaluate whether these characteristics are worthy of mention at all.

Most news organizations appropriately use terms like "gay man," "gay men," and "lesbian(s)"--though sometimes also "gay men and women" or "gay women" may be used. The term "same-sex" is now very frequent as well. The abbreviation LGBT or GLBT (gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender) is also commonly and appropriately used. Inappropriate terms include "the gays" (i.e. using "gay" as a noun), "homosexual" (this is an outmoded clinical term that tends to reflect ignorance on the writer), etc. Web sites such as HRC.org and GLAAD.org can give you more detailed recommendations on how to appropriately refer to GLBT people.

Transgender is a very complicated area since issues like gendered pronouns are at play. In many cases, it is best to ask the transgender person him- or herself what is appropriate or not. This consideration is typically appreciated.