Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Is Creation a plausible explanation for life?
Interesting Question? Yes (1) No (0)- In Belief and Thought |
- |
- Report |
- Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
January 15, 2010 12:25 AM
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Of course it's plausible. However, that does not mean it is proven. In fact, as is any matter of faith, it can neither be proven nor disproved scientifically. There are a number of ways in which G-d could have created the universe per the biblical creation story and have everything we measure come out as it does. The following are two examples:
1. G-d created the world about 6000 years ago, but part of creation was to put dinosaur bones in the rocks, oil underground, the stars and galaxies as they would need to be to seem the way they do now.
2. G-d created the universe in 6 days as measured by the clock when the universe was a fraction of a second old, and then when it was a bit older, etc. As the universe expanded, the subjective time measurement resulting from that slowed down, so that a day as measured at creation would today seem to us to be ~8 billion years. Another day after that ~4 billion years more, etc. such that 6 days end up seeming like about 14 billion years when measured today. For more details see http://www.mahalo.com/answers/society-and-culture/did-dinosaurs-exist .
These two examples show that it is plausible, in the sense that nothing we measure contradicts creation as the explanation for how the universe came to be.
Source(s):
1. G-d created the world about 6000 years ago, but part of creation was to put dinosaur bones in the rocks, oil underground, the stars and galaxies as they would need to be to seem the way they do now.
2. G-d created the universe in 6 days as measured by the clock when the universe was a fraction of a second old, and then when it was a bit older, etc. As the universe expanded, the subjective time measurement resulting from that slowed down, so that a day as measured at creation would today seem to us to be ~8 billion years. Another day after that ~4 billion years more, etc. such that 6 days end up seeming like about 14 billion years when measured today. For more details see http://www.mahalo.com/answers/society-and-culture/did-dinosaurs-exist .
These two examples show that it is plausible, in the sense that nothing we measure contradicts creation as the explanation for how the universe came to be.
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132
| Asker's Rating: |
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (7)
January 14, 2010 11:40 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Plausible
(adj.) Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: . . .
(adj.) Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
(adj.) Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking
www.dictionary.com
Absolutely, though some may disagree if it falls into the first definition or second.
Helpful Answer?
(adj.) Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: . . .
(adj.) Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
(adj.) Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking
www.dictionary.com
Absolutely, though some may disagree if it falls into the first definition or second.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
January 15, 2010 12:45 AM
(3)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
To me, it is as plausible as the theory that the entire universe came into being 30 seconds ago: all of your memories are false, all signs that something has aged have always existed, and before 30 seconds ago, there was absolutely nothing. How? Divinity.
To defend my "plausible" theory, I will ask the same questions Creationists seem to use: well, can you prove me wrong beyond any and all doubt?
Helpful Answer?
To defend my "plausible" theory, I will ask the same questions Creationists seem to use: well, can you prove me wrong beyond any and all doubt?
(3)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
January 15, 2010 12:45 AM
That is also a plausible explanation. Another is that all of you are a figment of my imagination - that's called solipsism. However, saying this is plausible does not affect the plausibility of creation, or of random chance causing the Big Bang. These are all plausible explanations that cannot be proven or disproved.
Report
January 15, 2010 05:25 AM
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Maybe like we keep ants in ant farms and they are totally oblivious to the outside world-maybe we are all somebody/somethings pets in a fishbowl on their counter. Maybe the real world is much larger then any of us realize and when we discover the end of the Universe it will be us jumping out of the bowl.
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
January 15, 2010 08:46 AM
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
No, of course not.
Realistically, everything we know and many things we've yet to know could not have been created in less than a week.
Biblically the earth is a bit more than 6,000 years old. Not possible. Dinosaurs? How about the sun?
Creation is not a plausible theory.
However, a person's religious beliefs are not based upon proof or even what seems logical/possible.
Instead, belief is based upon faith. Not what you see, hear or what science says is plausible but faith.
Helpful Answer?
Realistically, everything we know and many things we've yet to know could not have been created in less than a week.
Biblically the earth is a bit more than 6,000 years old. Not possible. Dinosaurs? How about the sun?
Creation is not a plausible theory.
However, a person's religious beliefs are not based upon proof or even what seems logical/possible.
Instead, belief is based upon faith. Not what you see, hear or what science says is plausible but faith.
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
January 17, 2010 12:16 PM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
The purpose of creation is to refine. We take materials we have and we try to refine them using knowledge, technology and past experience. As you know, our world have been much more chunky hundreds year ago. Our vehicles were clumsy and slow, we ate very heavy food and our houses were made of very raw materials.
Today we refined our life so we use very light materials to build our vehicles, we eat very light food and our houses are more easier to construct and deconstruct.
In the future creation will bring us to even more lighter materials until we come to the point where whole reality around us is very flexible, transparent, recyclable and like that, enjoyable.
More our life is refined through the process of creation, better life we have.
Not sure wether this answer is much related to the question but somehow it just came to me like that :-)
Helpful Answer?
Today we refined our life so we use very light materials to build our vehicles, we eat very light food and our houses are more easier to construct and deconstruct.
In the future creation will bring us to even more lighter materials until we come to the point where whole reality around us is very flexible, transparent, recyclable and like that, enjoyable.
More our life is refined through the process of creation, better life we have.
Not sure wether this answer is much related to the question but somehow it just came to me like that :-)
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
January 20, 2010 08:35 PM
(0)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
It's at least as plausible as evolution.
1. Evolutionary scientists have yet to explain how life came about from particles or chemicals.
2. There is still no proof of a "missing link". If there was a leap from apes to men, there would seemingly being many mutated apes that did not successfully make the leap, but there are none.
3. There is no explanation for one species changing into another species or one DNA changing to another type of DNA.
Creationism require just as much faith in the unseen and unproven as Evolution does.
Helpful Answer?
1. Evolutionary scientists have yet to explain how life came about from particles or chemicals.
2. There is still no proof of a "missing link". If there was a leap from apes to men, there would seemingly being many mutated apes that did not successfully make the leap, but there are none.
3. There is no explanation for one species changing into another species or one DNA changing to another type of DNA.
Creationism require just as much faith in the unseen and unproven as Evolution does.
(0)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
January 24, 2010 03:50 PM
1. Scientists already explained how the basic particles of life were formed.
2. There are numerous "missing links"! Creationists only reject those because when you fill in a gap between 2 species, now it must proven 2 aditional gaps! That's not how it works!
3. Yes, there is and there are various examples in the nature.
Evolution still has more consistent data backing up.
Report
2. There are numerous "missing links"! Creationists only reject those because when you fill in a gap between 2 species, now it must proven 2 aditional gaps! That's not how it works!
3. Yes, there is and there are various examples in the nature.
Evolution still has more consistent data backing up.
January 31, 2010 03:25 AM
1. You need to read my statement again.
2. Most mutations of species do not survive gestation. Those that do often die within hours of birth. If evolution occurred over millions of years and and each successive generation was trying to change into something else, there should be countless examples of mutations that did not survive, not just between human and apes, but between cat and dogs, or cats and tigers, or whatever the agreed upon step are.
3. Care to site a few examples of a change from one DNA to another since there are "various examples in the nature"?
Report
2. Most mutations of species do not survive gestation. Those that do often die within hours of birth. If evolution occurred over millions of years and and each successive generation was trying to change into something else, there should be countless examples of mutations that did not survive, not just between human and apes, but between cat and dogs, or cats and tigers, or whatever the agreed upon step are.
3. Care to site a few examples of a change from one DNA to another since there are "various examples in the nature"?
January 30, 2010 05:59 AM
(0)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
If, as the first idiot (I'm sorry, but that's the only word that fits) writes, God planted dinosaur bones in the Earth 6,000 years ago to deceive scientists and made the stars only LOOK like they were billions of years old (which means He had to give light a few billion year "head start" to get here now so we could see it) the question is WHY would He do something like that? The answer could only be to deceive us, to make us disbelieve the Bible. And if (as I'm assuming) the above writer believes in a just and loving God who "saves" those who believe in Him, then He's a MALICIOUS son of a bitch, because He's undertaking an elaborate scheme to FOOL people away from Him, who He will then condemn to eternal damnation. Good work, Kind and Loving God!
God, people who really, really, really want to believe this 6,000 year old nonsense have NO sense whatsover.
Helpful Answer?
God, people who really, really, really want to believe this 6,000 year old nonsense have NO sense whatsover.
(0)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
Reply