Forever Faithful: A Question for Creationists

That may be true,that creationists don't know much about evolution, some of them, anyway, yet many are learning and many have learned about it and do not accept it. I believe that most people who are creationists want to know the truth. Why would they close their eyes to real evidence or facts if they were there?
The great physical scientist Lord Kelvin was the founder of the second law of Thermodynamics,and he was a bible believing creationist.

---

Desdamona

Is this your answer when asked to give us names of scientists who discredit the TOE?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

And Kelvin calculated that the Earth had to be at least 20,000,000 years old, based on the thermo he knew about.And Gibbs and Carnot had a whole lot more to do with the 2nd law than Kelvin did.[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-24-2004]

Would you be interested in seeing examples of misleading material and even lies from the creatioinists? A Review of Creationist Web Sites
might be a place to start.You can point to particular sites which you think are most honest and searching for the truth. I suggest that even the best will be wrong in the facts they are using. Wrong even though there is a lot of opportunity to correct them. This is dishonest.Just pick some particular claim of a site that you like and reference it in a post in that thread.You could start with your 2nd law reference. And perhaps explain what you understand about it.You will find that the sites do not use the 2nd law, they make up a new one and then name it the 2nd law of thermodynamics or just muddle it up altogether.Des, you are being lied to by those who you are most inclinded to trust. That is unfortunate and hard to get used to, I'm sure.

Because of a prior commitment to believe that Genesis 1 is literally true. If you start with the assumption that Genesis 1 has to be the literal truth, then your only recourse is creationism and closing your eyes to the facts.

As Coragyps has already mentioned, from calculations based upon the rate at which the earth could cool from a molten state, Lord Kelvin believed the earth and solar system could be no more than 20 million years old, so long as there was no additional source of heat within the earth. Any additional heat sources would mean the earth was much older, just as the geologists and biologists were insisting must be the case. And Kelvin lived long enough to be in the audience when Ernst Rutherford announced that they had found that source of heat: radioactivity.And of course, Lord Kelvin was not a "Bible believing Creationist."Someone is giving you misinformation.--Percy

You once again have not addressed yourself to the topic. Funkman originally said in Message 6: The response I made was that the Bible was written by very fallible men. All men are fallible, in case that wasn't clear. Your response must address itself to how an infallible text could be produced by fallible people.--Percy

Perhaps this site might help you. It simply outlines some of the various Christian views relating to the Age of the Earth and Evolution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Atrox quote:
______________________________________________________________________
How are creationists able to, seemingly blindly, put there faith into creationism despite the scientific evidence behind evolutionism?
______________________________________________________________________How does evolution evidence against creationism ?I will say that it does IF you believe mankind evolved, but the amount of debateable evidence for this is so meagre that it takes more faith to believe this than to believe Genesis.

quote:

---

As I stated before, evolution does not fit into the Biblical worldview, so it would be contradictory and illogical for me to say I believe the Bible and also evolution which contradicts the Bible.

---

sorry. wrong. evolution doesn't fit into a modern literalist biblical worldview. but. the verb that is used when god 'creates' man... yeah. that's a process verb. it denotes an unfinished work. they have magical grammar those hebrews (*cream*). i don't understand this as well as some, being only a passive observer, but i get it and i think it's quite possible that the bible supports evolution. my point is. why couldn't god have used biological evolution? why do you insist on putting god into a box?

well see. it wasn't an original story. billy-bob stole it from several other sources of 'star-crossed lovers' such as pyramus and thisbe.

well the universe is expanding (which i think rather supports a continuously working and creative god... but i'm a weirdo.) so it doesn't really have an end because before you can reach it, it's moved. and what is beyond the finite universe? the infinite. that's all god is. the outside.and

quote:

---

A half baked philosophy is like half baked bread.Difficult to stomach.

---

dough eaters unite against this heresy!This message has been edited by brennakimi, 06-16-2004 05:00 PM

also, it's indicated from the text that god is speaking about creation in third person, not creating.basically, it took him seven days straight to TELL moses how he made everything.

quote:

---

sorry. wrong. evolution doesn't fit into a modern literalist biblical worldview

---

Bingo theres your answer "Modern". Its just todays evolutionized world insisting God still exists among a naturalist worldview. Unfortunately it doesnt work that way.

quote:

---

why couldn't god have used biological evolution? why do you insist on putting god into a box?

---

We arent putting noone in no box, Its what his word says. He gave us a 7-day week after his 7-day creation.

Bingo theres your answer "Modern". Its just todays evolutionized world insisting God still exists among a naturalist worldview. Unfortunately it doesnt work that way. why not? besides. why does god have to be christian anyways?We arent putting noone in no box, Its what his word says. He gave us a 7-day week after his 7-day creation.
um. i'd refer you to someone who has done some small research into differing views on that among jewish tradition... you know... the people who first owned the book... but you probably wouldn't care.