Creationists: Do you believe that if science cannot today explain the beginning of life, it never will? more..

Question

Why must it explain it today to be right, and not 100 years from now?

Answer 1

To the Answerers: Without science you wouldn't have a computer to type such stupid statements riddled with ignorant, uninformed, baloney.

To the Questioner: Science can explain the origin of life. Google the 'Miller/Urey Experiment.'

Answer 2

Well, personally, I don't think science has a hundred years left, even they think that the world is going to end. They are worried about meteors crashing into us, the sun getting to close and burning us up, etc. I think Christ will come really soon, so that is why I think they don't have a hundred years.

flip your question, what if in a 100 years we could prove to any non-believer that God is real? Why must it be proved today and not a 100 years from now? Again, I think that by 100 years from now, people will have gotten their proof of God by Jesus' 2nd coming.

Answer 3

I think science and creationism explains the beginning of life.

I think the singularity that caused a big bang of sorts was initiated by a personal God who answers prayer. I know that there's somewhat of a new theory that says two universes collided in the 11th dimension creating our universe along with all of its laws, space, mass, and energy. I find it difficult to swallow but they're doing their darndest to give explanations of how things began without the possibility of a omniversal personal being who answers prayers. Now, it's possible that God used a type of fabric in constructing multiverses, caused them to collide, and made them become our universe.


Despite which scenario occurred, I think God transcends the confines of the multiverses. I have to say this because the fabrics to construct the multiverses seemingly need a constructor. You can just take this whole thing back so far on its own before saying that everything needs an origin if it is confined to a multiverse. Then again, creationists are asked what God's origin is. So seemingly, both accounts have to be accepted by faith, at least in terms of origins of all things.
However, Hinduism thinks the universe is eternal and that big bangs occur then collapse after so many millions or billions of years then are big banged again. So on and so forth. They too believe a Creator authored all things. I think it was Carl Sagan who began to like Hinduism. Know that I'm not promoting Hinduism.
I think God created Heaven which isn't confined to the 11 dimensions of our universe. I think he then created the earth. I don't know how long a time there was between. I don't know how long it was between the time he created the earth and did anything else.
I think He created all waves the first day. Not just light.
At first, I think He allowed Himself to be the source of all waves. I think He also began a rotation of the Earth this day.
On the second day, I think He allowed water to be formed and allowed it to be in 3 different forms based on temperature areas of the planet.
Oh. Meanwhile I believe in the possiblity of planets being hurled outward since the time he Big Banged things. This would have happened since whenever when it occurred.
On the 3rd day, I think the allowed dry land to appear (I think it was Pangaea) along with rivers, streams, underground water systems, lakes, etc. As He had made Himself the light source as he specifically transended into our 11 dimensional universe and manifested (all the while omnipresent verywhere else), he created all plantlife both multi-cell and single cell.
Day 4, God caused stars to form including the sun, planets, moons, etc. He allowed these things to then be light sources rather than Himself. He also could have fast forwarded light to us as He is an omniversal omnidimensional God.
Day 5, God created the water animals and winged animals.
Day 6, all other animals created and a human specifically created.

I think it's possible to allow science to reinforce your faith rather than allowing either to cripple the other. I'm just one who mentally fastforwards alot of it. And, it's quite possible when the omni One is placed in the mix.

So.... Why not? That's a rhetorical question.

Answer 4

The bible has already explained it. if you spent any time truly studying God's word that you are so opposed to, you might find ot that the curent state of man will not continue for 100 more years

Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

repent and be saved

Answer 5

The only was scientists could prove that were if scientists could create life. Using your premise, even if that were accomplished, I do believe you would have to admit that it required intelligence with intent and a purpose to have created life. So as you can see, this still poses a problem for you to think that the magical ingredient of time coupled with chance accomplished by accident what scientists can't do on purpose.

Answer 6

I believe in Creationism. It wouldn't matter to me when they decided that they'd discovered it. I wouldn't believe it anyway. They've discovered a few things already that I don't buy. I'm sure that will get me labeled closed minded, but that's okay. I just know what I believe. One of the things I believe is that we all have a right to our beliefs and we all have a right to disagree with each other. That said, I think that we can disagree and still respect each other. (My husband and I do it all the time!) (-:

Answer 7

My question to you is: Can you entertain the possibility that the origin of the world involves a Supreme Being, but that that just can't be proven to your satisfaction? Can something be true if it's not proven?

Back, let's say, 1000 B.C. The earth WAS spherical, although it hadn't been proven. Man WOULD someday reach the moon, although that hadn't been proven. I can tell you my son loves me, but you have no proof.

Proof is not what makes something true. It's either true or it's not, but having proof or not isn't what makes it true.

Answer 8

because the evidence that science has to support what little it can is refutable. the fossil record shows a reduction of species and does not support those species changeing. and the carbon radio dating does not hold up under it either. so with very little supporting evidence its hard to let it just go.

plus how long do you think it takes for red bone marrow to fossilize. well look it up and see that it has survived and is pliable that doesnt make sense to me.

Answer 9

I believe that what they will find at the beginning of life is PART of the nature of God.

Answer 10

The beggining of life is by far one of the deepest mysteries in our existence.Yet... mysteries can be solved if we just try harder.

"mysteries are waiting to be discovered. all we have to do is search"