Guessing it�s complexness seems overly impossible for our puny minds.

Leave me out of that because I have no problem understanding how a group of people over a long period of time can come up with a doozy of a tale. Take a look at “The Lord of the Rings”, that was conjured up in the imagination of one man.

Take Tolkien’s writings in all stages/revisions from LoTR, Silmarillion, Lost Tales and the other histories he wrote, mix ‘em up, pull out a handful, and call it a book. 

Yeah, that’d be pretty messed up.

Do you know about Tolkein’s beliefs, and the actual back story to the Lord of the Rings?

Paddington, I think you illustrate quite well why some can believe in Christianity. The less intelligent a person is, the more likely he or she will be to attribute the mysteries or intricacies of the world to the actions and results of a supremely involved being.

The Bible isn’t complex or unique. Every repetitive fact, every repetitive description, every repetitive fantastic tale in it was an understandable, predictable observation or reflection of common fears, hopes and imaginations. It seems complex and involved mostly because it’s incredibly repetitive, and I can’t stress that too many times.

Like valhalla and Ragman, I’ve read more creative works by a single non-Bible author than any of the works of the multitude of authors and editors who contributed to the Bible.

Just because you can’t write a story like it, don’t assume that semi-intelligent humans (by present standards) 3000 years ago couldn’t - because they did.

Brock

Saying that the Bible and it’s teachings are simple, and that a less intelligent person would be more likely to believe in these things, perhaps says that you need to observe reality with a little bit more thought.

Christianity is not simple.  After all, real things are not simple.  They look simple, but they are not.  The table that I sit at as I write may look simple: but if you were to ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of - about the atoms and how the light waves rebound from it and hit my eye and what they do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain - and, of course, you find that what we call ‘seeing a table’ puts you in a mystery of complications that you can barely get to the end of. 

A child saying a child’s prayer looks simple.  And if your content to stop there, then that’s just fancy.  But if you are not - and most of the world is usually not - if you want to continue and ask what is really happening - then you must be prepared for something difficult.

If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that something more is not simple.I find that very often, this ‘silly’ procedure is taken by people who are not in fact ‘silly’, buy who, consciously or unconsciously, want to destroy Christianity. 

What you have done is put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and made that the object of your attack.  If I try to explain the Christian doctrine as it really is held by an instructed adult, you would then complain that I am making your head spin round and that it is all too complicated and that if there really were a God you are sure He would have made ‘religion’ simple, becuase simplicity is so beautiful etc.

Christianity is not only for children.

At the core of most religion is the need to simply have “faith” If you are going to believe in something as ridiculous as Christianity then just do so, don’t demean yourself by trying to prove something that is just a belief.  If the Bible is complicated, it doesn’t prove there is a god, if the Bible is simple it doesn’t prove there is a god.  If some twat can take every umpteenth letter mix them up on the third Friday of the month and create an obscure sentence that implies maybe Princess Diana was a space alien it doesn’t prove there is a god.  Stick to your beliefs (providing they don’t cause you to interfere with the beliefs and choices of others) if you must, but leave ‘proof’ as a tool for rational beings who start out without preconceptions in an impartial way (I know that unfortunately this description can not be applied to every scientist working today).  And Les, thanks once again for having the patience to answer these people’s statements in a fair and considered manner, me I just can’t be bothered with their point of view, hey, maybe I should take up religion.

Paddington, it’s clear you haven’t studied too many religions beyond Christianity. If you had you probably wouldn’t be trying to claim it’s too complex for our puny human minds to have thought up on their own. Particularly you should try studying up on Mithraism which shares a lot of the basic story concepts and rituals as Christianity.

Hell, for that matter, study up on any of a number of different religions. They’re all pretty complex when you get into the nitty gritty of them.

Still, I’d love to hear what you consider the basis for your claim that it’s too complex to have been “guessed” (whatever that means). I find that a pretty funny assertion to make.

Christianity is not only for children.

Indeed. It’s for anyone who wants to live in a comfortable fantasy.

Posted by Paddington 03-07-04

A child saying a child�s prayer looks simple. And if your content to stop there, then that�s just fancy. But if you are not - and most of the world is usually not - if you want to continue and ask what is really happening - then you must be prepared for something difficult.

I wouldn’t mind if you went further to explain what is really happening when a child prays. For that matter, explain the “something difficult” part - I’ll do my best to keep up with you. Please spin my head!

Paddington 03-07-04

If I try to explain the Christian doctrine as it really is held by an instructed adult, you would then complain that I am making your head spin round and that it is all too complicated�

I find interesting the words you use in this sentence - “doctrine”, “really” and “instructed”.
Doctrine: A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
Really: In actual truth or fact.
Instructed: 1) To provide with knowledge, especially in a methodical way. 
2) To give orders to; direct.

The whole problem with Christianity, as DaveR pointed out, is that you must accept it on faith alone. It cannot be proven to be real. One cannot responsibly instruct others regarding it, yet many are indoctrinated against disbelief. (Indoctrinated is defined as: To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view.)

Over and over again here, we get grief from you believers because we don’t accept your views of why Christianity must the absolute truth, yet each of you assumedly had your own chance to consider it and decide whether it was worth believing. Additionally, each of you has divergent beliefs concerning Christianity.

To me the Bible is simple because of the emotional desires and aversions it addresses such as envy, lust, greed, retribution, acceptance, love, comfort, hope etc. These are all commonly experienced or wished for. The Bible is complex in that it exaggerates fears and concerns to the point of obsession. It takes simple predictable events and characters and imbues them with ultra-human abilities and illogical reactions reducing them to cardboard cutouts of limited scope and reactability. It uses antagonistic emotionally one-sided characters to create a sense of drama and catharsis. I expect this is why it appeals to you believers. Not because it makes sense, but because it delivers dramatic, ultra fantastic, life-changing material.

Why do you think Mel Gibson chose to invest 25 million dollars of his own? Because he knew he could make an enormous profit off you guys. He knows you love to see a hero* get the shit beat out of him and arise triumphant. He knows you�re suckers for the dramatic.

*�Hero� is defined as 1) In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods. 2) A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

btw - you were up late last night, Paddington! Did you make church today?

posted by Paddington 03-07-04

Do you know about Tolkein�s beliefs, and the actual back story to the Lord of the Rings?

Oops, I forgot to ask Paddington to explain the back story of The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien’s beliefs. You can cut and paste if you like, Paddington, but please provide links to your sources.

If I try to explain the Christian doctrine as it really is held by an instructed adult, you would then complain that I am making your head spin round and that it is all too complicated�

Bull. shit.

It’s really not difficult for any educated adult to get thier head around. I have. You can weave intricacies all day long, but it doesn’t change the storyline...God sent himself as a man to die for human sins. And no amount of fortold prophesy or ancient heresay is going to convince me that 1) sin exists or 2) God/Higher Power has ever intervened and actually expects us to swallow this story.

There are some things I do feel are beyond human comprehension, at least at this time...but the Jesus story ain’t one of them. I fear for your IQ if you really think the story is all that complicated. It can all be essentially laid bare with a Psych 101 and World Civilizations textbook.

So to all you good lil Christians especially “Randall” in particular.

Just what in the Bible do you “believe” exactly?

Do you “believe” all of Genesis?
Do you believe some omnipotent being spoke a few chosen words and created the universe and everything in it in 6 days?
Or was it “God days”? and god days are?

Do you believe everyone on this planet all came from 1 divinely created man (Adam)?
Do you believe every living thing on the Earth today (over 6 Billion diverse humans and countless animals and creatures) all came from a single 450’x75’x75’ Ark built by Noah which lived to be over 900 years old? or was that Noah years?

If so please explain just how some youngster at the tender age of well over 600 proceeded to build such an Ark then managed to gather a couple million creatures from all over the planet.

Do you believe all humans lived to 200-900 years old “pre-flood”?
Do you believe that ONLY Noah and the 7 others with him approx 3500 years ago were the ONLY good or “holy” people on the planet? So cruelly drowning what must have been Millions of innocent men women and children & innocent creatures was of course a “justified” action by this loving, forgiving, tolerant, omnipotent being you call God then right?

Do you believe as its clearly written that the Earth is only between 6000-10,000 year old?
So you believe that dinosaurs walked with man merely a few 1000 years ago?

You do believe and have “faith” that the Bible is the true word fo God right? that its “infallible”?

Then please explain the hundreds upon hundreds of inaccuracies and contradictions in this infallible text.

Funny how in REALITY its common knowledge that there is not one single miraculous event in the Bible that is exclusive.
The Bible was 100% positively patchworked together from older pagan religions and rituals and that can be proven as fact with tangible verifiable evidence.

Virgin birth? nope been there done that.
great flood? nope been there done that.
Die by Crucifixion and rise again? nope
heal the sick? Nope try again.
Hades or Hell? nope
Paradise or heaven? Nope
The son of God amongst men only to sacrafice himself to be resurrected to join his father? Nope been there done that.
Bathtism? nope.
Hell even the so called bithday of Christ is borrowed Dec 25th.
Various so called “miracles” such as turning water into wine? nope been done.

and on & on, not one single thing of so called importance in the Bible is exclusive. every last bit of Christianity is directly patchworked from various Pagan rituals and no one believes these Pagan religions, so why exactly do so many believe the exact same manure labled as Christianity?
The so called “infallible” word of god that the Bible is claimed to be is packed full of contradictions.
Is full of blatant lies that can be proven to be.

Religion is by far the most divisive human behavior in history, they ALL are clearly false and can be proven to be with mountains of falsifiable, verifiable, tangible, logical, empirical, evidence that only a conplete imbecile could/would, or laughably try to refute.

Fact is as stated earlier YES Christians and all other religious zealots are clearly suffering from “Mass Psychosis” and brainwashing.
adn this condition is further exacerbated by another mental disorder called “Cognitive Dissonance” which explains why someone suffering from Religion refuses to face reality and the more factual evidence they see that clearly shows how ridiculous their beliefs are the more they fight to rationalize it by proselytizing other low IQ individuals into their fold.
With a “the more that believe my same delusion then it must be true” rationalization.

Sad thing is that this mental disorder is treatable with therapy & medication.

People always, ALWAYS pick and choose what they want to believe.  It’s just that some people consider a wider range of information when they make their choices, and some are aware of their agendas in choosing what to accept and what to reject.

The more thoughtful people who are religious will analyze the dogma to some extent, then generalize and abstract the best ideas and leave the droppings.  Being nice to your fellow human is a good thing, no matter which book it comes out of.  The truly rational people will reject the prejudice, supersition and incitements to violence even when they come from the sacred texts of their communities.

Then there are the narrow-minded, ignorant, mean-spirited twits, who will grab onto those same disgusting, poisonous ideas and parade them on signs in front of the Capitol as if they were immutable truths.  (Or, I might add, parade them in online forums.)

Just what in the Bible do you �believe� exactly?
Do you �believe� all of Genesis? {many specific questions follow}

I believe that it�s all possible. I can�t prove it happened that way and I can�t prove that it did not. I can counter any evidence that tries to contradict it. And I am left with the Bible which I believe is the infallible word of God, so yes, I believe it all. It is possible that the days were not literal days. It�s possible that the story of Noah was a parable, but I�ve no contrary evidence. I don�t like to get real specific here and say �God did it in just this way� because I do not know how He did it. And I think He takes a dim view of those that try to box Him in on the subject (see Job chapters 38-40). Since you start out by saying you don�t believe in the Bible, all I can hope for in this debate is a stalemate.

So cruelly drowning what must have been Millions of innocent men women and children & innocent creatures was of course a �justified� action by this loving, forgiving, tolerant, omnipotent being you call God then right?

Again, you�re starting with the basic disbelief that God is sovereign, that the wages of sin are death, that we are all sinners, and that death is part of the journey in an eternal life. If you begin instead (as I�m assuming you are) that people are intrinsically innocent, and that they have no responsibility before a higher power, and that physical death is the highest evil, then you�d be right in concluding that no such being had any right to destroy them.

Do you believe as its clearly written that the Earth is only between 6000-10,000 year old?
So you believe that dinosaurs walked with man merely a few 1000 years ago?

Actually a strong case (as strong as any I�ve seen contrary) can be built to say it�s less than 6k years. The theory holds that dinosaurs still roamed the earth within 500 years, possibly still do.

You do believe and have �faith� that the Bible is the true word fo God right? that its �infallible�?

Then please explain the hundreds upon hundreds of inaccuracies and contradictions in this infallible text.

Hmm, if I believe it has no fallibility, I wouldn�t know how to explain the something that I don�t believe is there. I�m guessing you�ll have to name some you think are there in order for this to have a future. But If you didn�t see the fallibility in your request, then I think we�re in for a long haul.

Funny how in REALITY its common knowledge that there is not one single miraculous event in the Bible that is exclusive.

Help me out here. You�re admitting that the miracles in the Bible did happen? But you�re complaining that there are other accounts? Is this an argument for or against believing in scriptures?

The Bible was 100% positively patchworked together from older pagan religions and rituals and that can be proven as fact with tangible verifiable evidence. {followed by what I assume are examples of same}

How does this disprove the validity of the Bible? You�re saying you accept the miracles happen, right? And you�re saying one guy showed up and did them all, right? But this guy claimed to be God, and that�s just not possible? Hmmm. Whatever.

Oh yeah, in what other religion did this happen:

Die by Crucifixion and rise again? Nope {and}
The son of God amongst men only to sacrafice himself to be resurrected to join his father? Nope been there done that.

Hell even the so called bithday of Christ is borrowed Dec 25th.

Don�t know of any Christians denying this. And this disproves it happened at one time how?

The so called �infallible� word of god that the Bible is claimed to be is packed full of contradictions.

Again, your logic escapes me. How can I respond to this clearly unsupported statement. Is claimed by who? Not anyone I trust.

Is full of blatant lies that can be proven to be.

Is this a sentence? If so, what does it mean? A lie that can be proven to be?

Religion is by far the most divisive human behavior in history, they ALL are clearly false and can be proven to be with mountains of falsifiable, verifiable, tangible, logical, empirical, evidence that only a conplete imbecile could/would, or laughably try to refute.

I agree that ALL of them can be proven to be with mountains of falsifiable evidence. I would also agree that only a complete imbecile would try to refute the verifiable, tangible, logical empirical evidence that proves religion. But ther are several other meanings I might drag out of that quadruple negative that I might like too. However, I would point out that I don�t believe in religion any more than you do. I DO have faith in God.

I do rather take exception with the idea that only folks of low IQ are Christians. I guess that if I say anything about my IQ, I�d be bragging again, so I�ll just point out that 100s if not thousands of the most brilliant people that ever lived were staunch Christians. Including my personal hero: Newton. When you invent a new system of math that rivals calculus, then take all the pot shots you like. Until then, can it.

Sad thing is that this mental disorder is treatable with therapy & medication.

Funny, I know a bunch of folks that say the same thing about homosexuality. I�m not sure I�d go with that, but I think they might be able to help you out with that paranoia.

so I�ll just point out that 100s if not thousands of the most brilliant people that ever lived were staunch Christians. Including my personal hero: Newton. When you invent a new system of math that rivals calculus, then take all the pot shots you like. Until then, can it.

Einstein
Hawking

Newton is an exception.

Aside from him, you may find that many great minds were listed technically as “Christians”, either by birth or by social force. But I’d say a very spare few actually bought the doctrine. Most great minds, if they believe in a god at all, will only acknowledge a higher power, and not the Jesus voodoo and biblical fairly tale.

These guys aren�t just Christian, all of these guys believe in literal creation as told in the Bible. And I�m not even including the scientists who are personal friends, just this short list of �famous� types. Spare me your social forces of the dark ages nonsense. We aren’t any more clever now as a race than we were 3 thousand years ago.

But yeah, Newton is exceptional, we agree there. and while we’re at it, I think Einsten was a Deist, not an atheist. Pretty sure that the same holds for Hawking.

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

* Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Dr Andr� Eggen, Geneticist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Metrologist
* Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr Pierre Jerlstr�m, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
* Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
* Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
* Dr John D. Morris , Geologist
* Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

Note: These scientsts are sorted by birth year.
Early

* Francis Bacon (1561�1626) Scientific method
* Johann Kepler (1571�1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
* Athanasius Kircher (1601�1680) Inventor
* John Wilkins (1614�1672)
* Walter Charleton (1619�1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
* Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623�1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
* Sir William Petty (1623 �1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
* Robert Boyle (1627�1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
* John Ray (1627�1705) Natural history
* Isaac Barrow (1630�1677) Professor of Mathematics
* Nicolas Steno (1631�1686) Stratigraphy
* Thomas Burnet (1635�1715) Geology
* Increase Mather (1639�1723) Astronomy
* Nehemiah Grew (1641�1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

The Age of Newton

* Isaac Newton (1642�1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it�s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity�See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57�80, 1997)
* Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646�1716) Mathematician
* John Flamsteed (1646�1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
* William Derham (1657�1735) Ecology
* Cotton Mather (1662�1727) Physician
* John Harris (1666�1719) Mathematician
* John Woodward (1665�1728) Paleontology
* William Whiston (1667�1752) Physics, Geology
* John Hutchinson (1674�1737) Paleontology
* Johathan Edwards (1703�1758) Physics, Meteorology
* Carolus Linneaus (1707�1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
* Jean Deluc (1727�1817) Geology
* Richard Kirwan (1733�1812) Mineralogy
* William Herschel (1738�1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
* James Parkinson (1755�1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
* John Dalton (1766�1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
* John Kidd, M.D. (1775�1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin

* The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
* Timothy Dwight (1752�1817) Educator
* William Kirby (1759�1850) Entomologist
* Jedidian Horse (1761�1826) Geographer
* Benjamin Barton (1766�1815) Botanist; Zoologist
* John Dalton (1766�1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
* Georges Cuvier (1769�1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Samuel Miller (1770�1840) Clergy
* Charles Bell (1774�1842) Anatomist
* John Kidd (1775�1851) Chemistry
* Humphrey Davy (1778�1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
* Benjamin Silliman (1779�1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
* Peter Mark Roget (1779�1869) Physician; Physiologist
* Thomas Chalmers (1780�1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
* David Brewster (1781�1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
* William Buckland (1784�1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Prout (1785�1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
* Adam Sedgwick (1785�1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Michael Faraday (1791�1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
* Samuel F. B. Morse (1791�1872) Telegraph
* Charles Babbage (1792�1871) Operations research; Computer science; Ophthalmoscope (old-earth compromiser*)
* John Herschel (1792�1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
* Edward Hitchcock (1793�1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Whewell (1794�1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
* Joseph Henry (1797�1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin

* Richard Owen (1804�1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Matthew Maury (1806�1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
* Louis Agassiz (1807�1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
* Henry Rogers (1808�1866) Geology
* John Murray (1808�1892) Publisher
* James Glaisher (1809�1903) Meteorology
* Philip H. Gosse (1810�1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
* Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810�1895) Archeologist
* James Simpson (1811�1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
* James Dana (1813�1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817�1901) Agricultural Chemist
* James Joule (1818�1889) Thermodynamics
* Thomas Anderson (1819�1874) Chemist
* Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819�1900) Astronomy
* George Stokes (1819�1903) Fluid Mechanics
* John William Dawson (1820�1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
* Rudolph Virchow (1821�1902) Pathology
* Gregor Mendel (1822�1884) (WOH) Genetics
* Louis Pasteur (1822�1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
* Henri Fabre (1823�1915) Entomology of living insects
* William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824�1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
* William Huggins (1824�1910) Astral spectrometry
* Bernhard Riemann (1826�1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
* Joseph Lister (1827�1912) Antiseptic surgery
* Balfour Stewart (1828�1887) Ionospheric electricity
* James Clerk Maxwell (1831�1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
* P.G. Tait (1831�1901) Vector analysis
* John Bell Pettigrew (1834�1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
* John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842�1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
* Sir William Abney (1843�1920) Astronomy
* Alexander MacAlister (1844�1919) Anatomy
* A.H. Sayce (1845�1933) Archeologist
* George Romanes (1848�1894) Biology; Physiology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
* John Ambrose Fleming (1849�1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

The Modern Period

* Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
* George Washington Carver (1864�1943) Inventor
* L. Merson Davies (1890�1960) Geology; Paleontology
* Douglas Dewar (1875�1957) Ornithologist
* Howard A. Kelly (1858�1943) Gynecology
* Paul Lemoine (1878�1940) Geology
* Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
* Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
* Edward H. Maunder (1851�1928) Astronomy
* William Mitchell Ramsay (1851�1939) Archeologist
* William Ramsay (1852�1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
* Charles Stine (1882�1954) Organic Chemist
* A. Rendle-Short (1885�1955) Surgeon
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892�1979) Surgeon
* Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915�1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

What do all these modern “scientists” who believe in literal creation do to get through the days?  Do most have split personalities or do they just put their fingers in their ears and hum at the bits they don’t like?

David, you could have just given us the link.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Soon as i saw this:

Actually a strong case (as strong as any I�ve seen contrary) can be built to say it�s less than 6k years. The theory holds that dinosaurs still roamed the earth within 500 years, possibly still do

Then i did’nt bother to read any further, nothing but insane ramblings of a madman is every single person iv seen that even thinks that is even a remote posibilty.
Dont even need to look at anything else you have to say so thanks for saying that perl of wisdom near top so i did’nt waste my time any further

David said…

These guys aren�t just Christian, all of these guys believe in literal creation as told in the Bible

but what I think he meant was this…

*As far as we know, the scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless otherwise stated. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below, because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is �millions of years� old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day �long-agers� are included intentionally, because they should know better.

I pasted from the link in my previous post.

there are numerous studies that have been done, many of them very extensive over decades that clearly show the dumber you are the more likely you are to believe Fables and fairytales are true and swallow religious dogma.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Never - no, ALWAYS check your references!

(freely adapted from Real Genius)

nunyabiz,,,

i want to thank you for considering me to be so special.  usually only my close family and friends see me that way but i appreciate your thoughtfullness.

it seems that you have decided what you believe and that you are not really interested in what i really believe,so i will not take the time to explain it to you. 

you can probably (which evidently you already have) read a few of my posts and decide for yourself what i believe.

it may be really hard to believe that there is no God, and the Jesus stuff is all a myth and i respect those that choose to believe that

it is equally hard for me to believe everything i see on a daily basis just happened without design.

i am not sure why you have such angst against us “lil Christians”

Fact is as stated earlier YES Christians and all other religious zealots are clearly suffering from �Mass Psychosis� and brainwashing.
adn this condition is further exacerbated by another mental disorder called �Cognitive Dissonance� which explains why someone suffering from Religion refuses to face reality and the more factual evidence they see that clearly shows how ridiculous their beliefs are the more they fight to rationalize it by proselytizing other low IQ individuals into their fold.
With a �the more that believe my same delusion then it must be true� rationalization.

Sad thing is that this mental disorder is treatable with therapy & medication.

i gues you feel anyone that expresses a faith in Crist has mental problems, low IQ, and need medication.

i am sorry you feel that way about someone you have never known or met.

Yes, i can tell your *special* as apparently is David.

I know there is no God, the evidence is so overwhelming its insane to believe otherwise.
Yes very religious people have a mental disorder, its called Cognitive Dissonance.
It will prevent you from acknowledging any evidence no matter how factual, no matter how possitively provable the evidence is makes no difference, actually the stronger the evidence against the stronger your convictions to hold onto your belief, its really quite insidious & I pity you.

You have ZERO evidence of any kind to back up your beliefs.
I can list mountains of evidence but there is no reason because no matter what it is you will deny it.
Iv gone through this dog chasing his tail routene before on boards and not about to do it again.

You “believe” what you believe the end, you have zero evidence to back any of it up.

I know what i know, and have over whelming evidence to back it up.

May as well leave it at that because your condition prevents you from accepting reality.

Oh for crying out loud. You’re not actually going to play this stupid game, are you? It doesn’t prove a thing other than even highly intelligent people can buy into silly ideas. OK, fine, if you want to go there:

Einstein reluctantly suggested he was possibly a Deist at the urging of his wife. Most of his statements and writings make it clear, however, that he didn’t believe in a personal creator of any kind nor that we survive death in some fashion.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.—Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science”

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.—Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Immortality? There are two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and is thus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conserve the memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other.—Albert Einstein, quoted in Madalyn Murray O’Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists (1982) vol. ii., p. 29

Thusly why he’s one of my personal heroes. As for Stephen Hawking you may be correct. He has never stated flat-out what his views are, though he has denied being an atheist. Usually when pressed he’ll lay claim to being either an agnostic or deist.

That said, your list is very impressive, but if I were going to list off all the leading scientists who are atheists it would take longer than I care to invest. Instead I’ll point to a paper published in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham titled Leading Scientists Still Reject God which stated that the percentage of scientists who held religious belief went from 30% in 1914 to less than 10% in 1998. A questionnaire was sent to 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences and about half of them were received back. Scientists who stated that they had no belief in a personal god went from 52.7% in 1914 to 72.2% in 1998 and those stating no belief in an immortal soul went from 25.4% in 1914 to 76.7% in 1998. One of the co-authors of the study, Beit-Hallahmi, said “that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from.” In comparison, only 7% of scientists in 1998 expressed a belief in a personal god and only 7.9% of them expressed a belief in the immortality of the soul.

There. I win.

thank you, i just dont have it in me to argue with insanity.

Another part of that list is of the approx 480,000 Scientist in the US only 0.14% (under 700) believe whole or even part of Creationism.

How those 700 got PHDs is beyond me, i can only assume they kept their lunacy bottled up til afterwards. Or maybe got some obscure PHD from some religious University.