Forever Faithful: A Question for Creationists

Perfect! Once you convince everyone of that we can close down this forum. The only argument that most of us have is with those who do think that the Bible is a book about science.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-21-2004]

No, not particularly. However, I know a number of Christians and some who post here that find it an insult to Christianity and the Bible. As has already been noted we are very clear that science doesn't have all the answers even in those areas that we expect it to, perhaps, someday have answers. However, We do have some answers. There have also been a significant number of posts discussing a little of what would be considered scientific. If someone tells me that the Bible says that the earth is only 6,000 years old then I will tell them that as a science book the Bible is wrong. No. Why would you say that? The reasonings and evidence are the best available. It is there for you or anyone to critise. Some ideas in science are only very fancy speculations ( e.g., the brane hypothosis), others have been through decades of study and critisism and are darn sure things now. Some fall between those extremes. Are you suggesting that someone has to be "infallible", perfectly correct in all things all the time before what they have to say on one topic can be given any consideration?That "wrong" up there about the earth's age is, even considering all the talk about tentativeness of scientific theories and being subject to further testing and so on, a very, very sure bet indeed. It is right up there with the sun raising tomorrow.I have the impression that you might disagree with this. If so there is a dates and dating forum to discuss it. We find that Biblical "literalists" tend to shy away from there. I'm sure you have. I've heard it too. So what? There are threads somewhere discussing that. If you agree with it you either have a very odd definition of religion, no knowledge of the religious views of many scientists or both. There are oodles of Christian biologists so it seems that where ever you heard that you might want to consider a not so very reliable source of information. LOL, I'm not sure that typing speed makes me a source of any profound wisdom. However, I'll take a shot at it.I don't think that many scientists would say that anything we think we know about the universe outside of the 13.7 or so billion years of it's existance that we can study in some way is "undeniable". For it to be "eternal" I would presume there was something "before" the big bang and we would have to redefine "universe" to include things not currently observable. A scientific answer to questions that you seem to be posing would, to me, be: "We don't know."Something like 40% of mainstream, practising scientists are "believers" of one sort or another. I take it from that statistic that they recognize an "eternal God". Based on that your statement is founded on a mispreception.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-21-2004]

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.