What must our chur What must our church look like to invite revival? True change begins on the inside and moves out. The altar of the heart is a place of consecration, commitment The altar of the heart is a place of consecration, commitment, and holy habits.
Many of us want spiritual awakening in our homes, church, city, and country. The external results we all want The external results we all want begin with internal shifts. It all begins at the altar. Context makes a difference in conversation, but also when we read the Bible. NewSpring Church. What does the Bible say about dinosaurs? Facebook Twitter Pinterest. Thus the dinosaurs on board the Ark probably would have been young adults, no bigger than a cow perhaps. But the world after the Flood was much different than before, with much less vegetation and a colder, harsher climate, and evidently the dinosaurs gradually died out.
Perhaps they were even hunted to extinction, as would be indicated by the many legends of dragons, the descriptions of which closely resemble dinosaurs. At any rate, Biblical history has an explanation for dinosaurs, their creation, life-style, and extinction. Christian parents are encouraged to use them to teach Biblical truth. Cite this article: Morris, J.
How Do the Dinosaur Fit in? Skip to main content. More Days of Praise. God My Personal Savior. Francis Beckwith, professor of philosophy and church-state studies at Baylor University, in Waco, Texas, in an article in the fine journal First Things, sharpens your comment about dinosaurs by quoting scientist Kurt Wise:.
It was there that night that I accepted the word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science. ID promises a middle ground by asserting that evolution is true, but that it reflects the work of an intelligent designer, who is obviously God.
God created evolution so that it could eventually evolve us. Scientists have condemned intelligent design. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that — an illusion. Each side got some things right and some things wrong. Before beginning, I should note that this is a daunting topic on which hundreds of thousands of pages have been written. People have spoken, and people have argued.
This limited essay will only scratch the surface by providing a brief overview of the topics I have listed. I have provided a book list to guide the reader into more detailed presentations of topics raised in this essay.
I am aware that fools go in where angels fear to travel, and admit to being foolish on occasion. There are three scientific topics to consider—the origin of the universe, the origin of the Earth, and the origin and development of life on the Earth. Physicists and cosmologists have developed an understanding of the beginnings of the universe for which there is good scientific consensus.
The conclusion by cosmologists is that In fact, nothing for which we have scientific evidence existed beforehand, not even space or time.
However, no definitive scientific understanding of the universe exists before the big bang, as there is no way to scientifically explore that era. For the time span just beyond the first fraction of a second after the big bang, cosmologists are confident that they know rather well how the universe developed subsequently, including the formation of our solar system and Earth. During the course of cosmic advancement, objects on the scale of our solar system formed approximately 5 billion years ago, our planet 4.
How the first self-replicating molecules meaning molecules associated with life formed remains an unsolved puzzle. For about a half-century a number of theoretical schemes along with experimental work have been directed toward trying to answering this question, with no clear satisfactory solution as yet.
Scientists who are actively pursuing biological research are confident that for the time period beginning after the appearance of life on Earth, contemporary evolutionary science gives a good account for the development of life up to the present time.
Many Christians who conclude that evolutionary science correctly describes how God has brought about and continues to uphold the created order refer to this entire package as evolutionary creation.
This is in contrast to evolution advocates who maintain an atheistic religious position. It is important to note that evolutionary science does not imply an atheistic worldview, or for that matter, a theistic worldview. Evolutionary science is neutral or agnostic in regards to metaphysical implications; it is a naturalistic endeavor in scientific method only. As a result, Christians who find evolutionary science to be an accurate description of how life has developed on Earth are quick to point out that evolution is the mechanism by which God has brought about the wonderfully diverse life we now observe on his Earth, and they maintain that this mechanism is well described by contemporary biological science.
For example, the optical model of the nucleus represents the nucleus of an atom as a partially opaque crystal ball, since there are at least three nuclear phenomena that behave like a beam of light shining on a partially cloudy crystal ball. A scientific model is a first attempt at correlating diverse scientific data with the goal of eventually formulating a higher-level understanding of the phenomena in terms of a theory. A scientific theory encompasses a more comprehensive set of phenomena than does a model.
The scientific use of the term theory does not imply a guess or a scientific shot in the dark. Rather, it is a scientific shorthand designation representing the correlation of a large and diverse set of data related to a broad topic. To designate a scientific description as a theory implies a powerful idea and understanding. Hence, to refer to contemporary neo-Darwinism or evolution as a theory implies that it is the reigning paradigm and undoubtedly the beginning point of any further research in this particular field of study.
The theories in physics include the electromagnetic theory by Maxwell s , quantum theory s , relativity theory early 20th century, Einstein , and in biology the neo-Darwin theory of evolution, each of which gives scientific understanding to a wide swath of phenomena, and each of which is held in high esteem by the scientific community.
The laws of science are short statements that usually refer to a more restricted phenomenon or idea but on which there is universal acceptance. A law summarizes data and many times refers to something that is thought to be invariable. The second law of thermodynamics, when stated correctly, is consistent with all known phenomena. The law of conservation of energy is another example.
As a result, when people ask whether evolution is a fact or only a theory, they display some misunderstanding. The theory of evolution, implying a scientifically comprehensive understanding of a huge and diverse amount of biological data, and not simply a guess or a shot in the dark. Designating the scientific understanding of biological processes as a theory implies that this understanding has a very high vote of confidence with those scientists working to understand these processes.
If I ever developed a scientific understanding of the nucleus that is referred to by the nuclear physics community as the Carlson Theory of the Nucleus, I would be very proud and pleased. I, however, continue to wait. In sum, evolutionary theory correlates, systematizes, and interprets an enormous array of biological data facts related to the development of life on the Earth into a coherent and small set of principles that account for these data in an elegant way. And this is called the theory of evolution or neo-Darwinism.
Biologists working in this field will be greatly surprised if current evolutionary thought is replaced by any scientific theory that is significantly different.
Of course, this is entirely possible. No scientific theory is percent certain. It is said of scientists that, if they marry a scientific theory, they may someday find themselves to be a widow or a widower. Microevolution and macroevolution are different, but they involve essentially the same processes. Microevolution refers to small changes in species due to the processes of evolution that accumulate over relatively short periods of time up to a few centuries within a population.
These changes allow a given species to adapt to changes in its environment, and have been observed in numerous instances. Macroevolution is major evolutionary change at the species level or higher, resulting in the formation of new species. In one sense speciation and microevolution are different processes in that speciation often requires the new species to have some type of isolation from its parent group in order to keep the new species distinct.
0コメント