Comparative Essay

Comparing Aung San Suu Kyi’s excerpt from “In Quest with Democracy” and Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

The fascination of Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn still stays strong to this day. We often find ourselves loving the idea of these two flawless icons. Everyone wanted to be them then, and it is still true today. They were two major icons in the 1950’s. They were two beautiful, inspirational women. Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn really did live the lifestyles of the rich and the famous. Most people only see the similarities, but in fact, they are more different than some may think.

Young- Earth view point on the age of earth is based on not only science but the Bible as well. There try to combine the two areas in an effort to present the true age of the earth. One of the areas they use is how long it takes for material to harden. They present

The old-Earth secular viewpoint on the original creation of the earth nebular hypothesis vs. six-day creation is described as God’s creation of the universe through the “big bang” event, by which God created all matter and energy and ultimately all heavenly bodies including the earth, sun, moon and stars. According to Jon W. Greene (2012) old-earth views are God miraculously created the universe from nothing (ex nihilo), created life from non-life, and progressively intervened in history to supernaturally create new species of life. The age of the earth has no bearing on the creation of life. God created Adam and Eve, humanity’s historical parents, who were new distinct creatures from whom humanity’s sin originated. Earth’s geologic features

I agree with you that there are many concepts that can account for a young-Earth creation. You mentioned a few, such as sediment; rocks; fossils; and the sun, all of which indicate that they have not been around for a very long time. Most young-Earth Creationists believe that the Earth has only been around between 6,000 but no more than 10,000 years (“What is Young Earth Creationism,” 2017).

The topic selected for the following comparative essay is, “Original creation of the earth (nebular hypothesis vs. six-day creation).” This essay will discuss the key points and differences found in both of the creation theories. The young-earth six-day creation view will be compared against the secular nebular hypothesis. For introductory purposes the definition of the two theories will be provided as follows: the nebular hypothesis can be defined as, “A great cloud of gas and dust begins to collapse because the gravitational forces that would like to collapse it overcome the forces associated with gas pressure that would like to expand it” (The Origin of the Solar System). Contrary to that, the six-day creation theory propose that the writings in the book of Genesis state the Earth was created by God in six literal days. This essay isn’t meant to prove one of the theories correct, only to provide the proof for yourself to decide which theory to believe.

For centuries there has been a feud that almost every scientist has been part of; the creation vs evolution controversy. Ever since 1859, when Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species,” the argument on whether Earth was created by a higher being, or just evolved from atoms, has been one of the most discussed topics. Of late, the evolutionary standpoint has been discussed more the creationist standpoint. However, “Is Genesis History?” is a documentary that brings light to the creationist standpoint. “Is Genesis History,” proves there is a higher being out there, known as God, that actually created the earth in 6 days, and the earth is only 4,000 years old! With the Bible, we can explain many of the “proofs of evolution,” on how it actually

The old-earth secular view that I chose for my essay is the nebular hypothesis. The nebular hypothesis proposes that the sun, earth, and the rest of the solar system came from a cloud of dust and gas. This is the most accepted explanation of how the planets and stars came about. The nebular hypothesis was first developed in the 18th century by Emanuel Swedeburg, Immanuel Kallt, and Pierre- semsne laplace. They had different theories which were constantly challenged by numerous

There are four main views on how our planet Earth was created. The first view is the Young Earth View, which states that planet Earth was created in literal days. God created everything within a seven 24 hour periods. The second view on how the Earth was created is The Day Age (Old Earth) theory. This theory suggests that God created the world in different ages, because one large chunk of time to us might merely mean a day to God. This explains why people believe that the Earth could be billions of years old. The third view of creation is the Restoration View (Gap Theory). This theory suggests that God created the Earth but there was a long gap between each stage that it allowed the Earth to form into what it is today. And last but not least is the Literary Framework which says that each of the other theories are wrong because they all miss the point of what the book of Genesis is trying to explain to us. Me, personally, I believe in the first theory, Young Earth View. That is how I have always looked at it and the other ways just do not seem to make any sense to me. Now that being said, I started considering The Day Age (Old Earth) theory because it seems like it could explain so much of what science has found and it could tie into the book of Genesis. But after reading “The Genesis Debate” a chapter in a book titled “Across the Spectrum Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology” written by Boyd and Eddy, I noticed that they had some scripture

By definition; love is a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. Love can be interrupted in many ways. Were we ever taught love or is it just a natural feeling towards a person? Some say you'll know the meaning of love when you fall in love, yet some don't believe in love at all.

Which is more viable, the theory that the planet humans live on is 4.6 billion years old and that everyone and everything in the world has evolved over all these years? Or is it the theory from the first book of the Bible, Genesis, that the almighty and powerful God created the heavens and the Earth over a course of six days and six nights? No one actually knows the answer because no person that is alive today was alive when the Earth was created. Although there has yet to be a definitive answer to this life long question, each side has evidence to support its claim. But, despite the towering amount of evidence that both sides have, one can not help but think that the correct answer comes from science.

Earth was formed around 4.6 Ga ago. Since then the earth’s atmosphere has changed considerably over the next few billion years until the present era. The first million years of earth’s history was filled by meteor bombardments from debris throughout our solar system, which is likely to have suppressed life from forming up until 3.8 Ga ago (Nisbet and Sleep, 2001). This article will thus focus around the 3.8 Ga era, since life is unlikely to have formed before 4 Ga. The aim of the article to ascertain when life started to evolve supported by both hard evidence and newfound evidence yet to be accepted globally.

“We must as Gods people stand against the compromise of reinterpreting Genesis to fit in evolution and millions of years, which undermines biblical authority.” Ultimately, what’s at stake in this debate is more than just a magic number of years. This debate’s significance centers on God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture and whether Scripture is relevant today or not. This issue has only become a debate in the last couple hundred years. Before the Enlightenment, people in Western cultures accepted the young earth view because the scriptural account of creation was interpreted literally. Now ideas crashing with other ideas, Hebrew words are being tossed and turned. Moreover with the continued cross-examining of Scripture and with the new discoveries made in science, Christian have begun to question whether or not the earth is young or old? The worst fall-out of the argument has been division in the body of Christ, were many brothers and sisters have held so tightly to their views causing disunity within the church. Many people now feel that they must choose between science and sola scriptura. Actually, the choice is not between science and Scripture. A young earth stance can be both science and Scripture and has more credibility than an old earth because of radioactive testing has proved to be unreliable and history has been in constant support of young earth until the past 200 years. This paper will displaying the two leading positions in the debate, and then support for

We live in a relentless society characterized by spectacular scientific innovation and research. This innovation continuously morphs the foundation of how we understand the world, including our philosophical ideologies and religion. New geological discoveries the last couple hundred years has undermined many Literal-historical views on how the earth was created. Churches that were once anchored on the young earth hypothesis now face a split between those who hold steadfast to their traditional foundation, and those two branch out their beliefs to accommodate the scientific discovery. A multitude of theories such as the Day-Age, Gap and Framework have come up from the mix of postulations. Before I came into this class, I had begun to develop my own notions about the way in which the world was created, but had a very unclear picture of how the flood, radiometric dating, and layers of sediment played into the whole picture. My ideas were congregated from a mixture of what I was taught at my modern evangelical church, what I had learned in public school, and what I had read in scripture. I however, faced a discontinuity within this area because while I knew what I believed, I didn’t know why understanding this issue mattered. Thanks to this discussion about Genesis and geology, I have developed a clearer picture why and how I believe in certain theories and philosophies. It also has enabled me to develop an understanding of how science and religion are separate entities.

Contemporary study of Earth is essentially founded upon mankind’s human nature to fathom its origins. While it was formerly believed that intelligent life was distinctive to Earth, we have acquired an admiration that even though Earth is probably not singular, the reality of developed life on planets may considerably be unfamiliar. We have not yet recognized other stars that have planets similar to that of Earth, noting that none of the other planets possess compound, satisfactory life the way Earth can. It is genuine to desire the comprehension of what fostered the creation of Earth fitting for life and how life emerged; Earth is exceptional in its own formation of life. Undertaking these questions prompts us to elemental issues regarding the configuration and evolution of stars and planets. Luckily, a fierce endeavor to understand the methodology of Earth’s birth still remains today, giving us hope that we may one day secure the final answer. There are countless theories and hypotheses as to how the Earth was formed, but only few are considered as widely accepted views. The origin of Earth had commenced around 13.7 billion years ago, accompanied by the Big Bang theory, an indecipherable grand explosion that forced all matter of the universe flying outward at remarkable speeds. With time, the rubbish from the outburst, practically consisting of entirely hydrogen and helium, became cool and started to compact into the prime stars and galaxies. Our solar system and