It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution Cannot be Proven

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Im no expert, but i think its because the environment in which you live forces you to evolve to fit to it.


A bacteria was found near a nylon factory, eating nylon. Well, nylon is completely synthetic and undigestable to other bacteria. It was invented in 1935. So were nylon eating bacteria living in the garden of eden? Living on nothing but air and love? Maybe god gave some bacteria the gift of nylon eating in 1935?

Or maybe it was evolution causing them to evolve somewhere between the invention of nylon and their discovery? Well, to put it to the test, they put some other bacteria in a nylon rich invironment, and indeed they evolved to be able to digest it.


DNA hold many answers, for example chickens. They dont have teeth, but since their ancestors did, its code is still in their DNA. If we activate the right gene we WILL get a chicken with teeth.

uk.youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


So if I was to live by the sea, go swimming everyday, go fishing, I would evolve fins? Some bacteria could live in environments that are impossible to harbor life, but we don't.

It is a known fact that darkness attracts more heat isn't that correct? How come African-Americans did not evolve into white humans? There are so many flaws with evolution, and until it is perfected, I will sit by and believe in nothing.

Like I mentioned earlier, I am not a creationist nor am I an evolutionist. It is just something about both stories that do not add up.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Dark skin prevents an essential B vitamin, folate, from being destroyed. So a person with dark skin in the tropics would live longer, be more healthy and more likely to reproduce than a person with light skin.

As dark skin prevents sunlight from penetrating the skin it hinders the production of vitamin D3. Hence when humans migrated to less sun-intensive regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and lighter skin colors started appearing.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
i wish at least a few more of you would read "On the Origin of Species" before acting like evolution is science.

It is not.

Evolution is an aspect of a rather modern religion i call materialism.

The Materialist is every bit as fanatical in their beliefs as the Christian or the Muslim, and requires no proof at all to support their fanatical beliefs.

Saying all that is missing is "a missing link" is like saying all that's missing from a bridge across the grand canyon is a "missing span".


SR

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by Daniem
 


So if I was to live by the sea, go swimming everyday, go fishing, I would evolve fins? Some bacteria could live in environments that are impossible to harbor life, but we don't.

It is a known fact that darkness attracts more heat isn't that correct? How come African-Americans did not evolve into white humans? There are so many flaws with evolution, and until it is perfected, I will sit by and believe in nothing.

Like I mentioned earlier, I am not a creationist nor am I an evolutionist. It is just something about both stories that do not add up.


But what's your point?? As you are already able to swim what would be the need to have gills???

An human of african descent wouldn't need to evolve a white pigment as their skin has already evolved to cope with solar radiation, look at how white skinned people's moles are brown , how are these caused??? Sun radiation. For a black pigment to turn pure white would be devolution.

Your logic is baffling, Evolution doesn't claim to have the definitive truth it is after all only a theory, Creationism says it's the only truth and it cannot be questioned.

Evolution encourages questioning and trying to disprove it as that is 'evolution' after all it's provided more answers to us all than sitting around for 3000 years worshipping a man in the sky.

Of course everything doesn't add up yet, which is more proof we're still evolving slowly over time.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by Daniem
 


I don't know. I guess it's just the fact that people's near death experiences let's them see the same thing over and over again. The white light. The creator if you will. I think it makes as much sense as we came from magic dust which turned into this whole universe.


Could you please see my above post? Even if there is "something" more, it doesn't validate the Bible (not sure if that's what you're saying). That being said- I don't think anyone will debate that evolution, if not driven by "intelligence" (as we know it) is at least steered by consciousness. We know this because, well- "I think, therefore I am." We all just_know_this. So it's not really a leap to say that since everything very probably has a 'single source' there is also a single source of consciousness. We are but aspect of that single source, being tricked by our current energy configuration (or body) into seeing reality in a certain way. So what do we call this single source? Call it God if you like. And accept that in this way "God created religion" and "God created science." You see? Evolution is just a word for 'what occurs.' We do our best from our limited perspective to get an idea of the 'bigger picture' and we do this by connecting the dots. Anyone who really connects the dots can see that "evolution" indeed occurs, and will always occur, probably in more ways than we're capable of understanding at this time.

Okay.. That being said- I need to stop coming on here and posting stoned.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by Daniem
 


It is a known fact that darkness attracts more heat isn't that correct? How come African-Americans did not evolve into white humans? There are so many flaws with evolution, and until it is perfected, I will sit by and believe in nothing.


Melanin produced in the skin protects us from the harmful rays of the sun. It is what makes you tan, and what makes Blacks black. The intense sun of the African savanah is what caused this trait in the species. When a portion of the species migrated to Europe, an Ice age and colder, cloudier weather decreased the need for this trait, so it went away in that portion of the species. African Americans have only been on this continent for 300 to 400 years, a blink in evolutionary standards, so that is a ridiculous example. It has been measured that we are getting taller and smarter, which are examples of evolution. And what exactly are these flaws you speak of?

Increasing intelligence: The Flynn effect

Height and intelligence



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
It is amazing that people doubt evolution. The "theory" in evolution is that evolution occurs due to natural selection. That it actually occurs is not debated by any scientists anywhere. You can't have a theory without an observable phenomenon said theory is meant to explain. The only debate on evolution comes from the religious sector. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the very bedrock of biological science. It successfully predicted the existence of DNA and is largely responsible for every single medical advancement of the last 70 years. At this point, people who deny that evolution occurs are exactly the same as people who claim the Earth is flat. They are wrong.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
What it reallly boils down to is that if creationists concede that evolution happened, then they would have to admit that the Bible isn't completely true, and therefore they would have to doubt the rest of it. Their faith in the Divine is so weak that it could not stand up to such a fact. It would mean that they would have to make up their own minds about matters of spirituality and not just rely on what they are told.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
LOL!



Intelligent design does not even mean that your definition of a god created all things. I believe in science but i still know that your opinion of a god is childish.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


There would yield a higher food source from the oceans than on land. Being small mammals, they were prone to many predators had they searched for food deep in land, where as they could comb the beaches for small fish, crustaceans, and so on, with relative ease.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
reply to post by Equinox99
 


There would yield a higher food source from the oceans than on land. Being small mammals, they were prone to many predators had they searched for food deep in land, where as they could comb the beaches for small fish, crustaceans, and so on, with relative ease.


Well, then again they would have a big variety of predators in the sea would they not? I mean not too long ago they found the fossil of a giant sea creature.

The Earth is not flat...I am sure none of us are that dumb.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
OK, let me ask all those creationists one simple question: Can you show me one, just one, peice of scientific proof that supports the creation myth? Now this means that you have to use a reputable scientific source, not just quote some creationist website. Something that actually has some data behind it. Good luck! While your at it, show me anything other than the Bible itself to support the arguement that it was 'Divinely inspired'. The weight of this arguement is on you, after all, since there is plenty of data which does not support your position.

'As always, if you are caught or captured, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Good Luck, Jim!'

In other words, Mission: Impossible!



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Although im not religious, i cant say that the sound of a creator is all that silly. It would be easier to believe the bible if i could do "magic." But to tell you the truth, science disproves itself. They say the big bang created all matter or whatever, well i wanna know where the whole "cant create something out of nothing" idea went. How did the atoms, elements, etc come to be to form the components needed for a big bang to occur? According to science its impossible. That doesnt stop people from seeing it as a could-be alternative way for the "spawning" of the universe. Maybe a god does exist, and he implemented evolution to see how things worked out. Maybe he sees us as a big science project. I would also like the bible to explain prehistoric things like dinosaurs. Maybe you say the world was empty before adam and eve were created. Apparantly (if im not mistaken) this was within the past 10000 or so years. Well, what was god doing with it for the first millions of years? Perhaps it was just man that was created recently. Why doesnt he tell us what was here before man? And what was its purpose here? sorry i may be a bit biased, havent read the whole bible yet, thought it was good advice but some of the stories were terribly fictitious, like a creative mind like shakespeare wrote them.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
If evolution cannot be proven, then answer me this: If evolution does not happen, why is the CDC worried about the Bird Flu jumping species? It would require it to evolve in order to do this!



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


How come??? Mutation that is how come.There is a bit of a difference between mutation and evolution.According to some evolutions they go hand in hand but I am not so sure that would be the case with a virus.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Very good info on this sight with a bit of insight on creation.I have shared this link on another thread but do not believe any have really read even this one page.There is enough fact on this one page to show that creation is not only a viable possibilty but that it is unscientific to see it as just "bang" lightening strikes a primordail soup and there ya have it life....just a few billions years and here ya have everything else of life in the world.Geeze come on, and you say creation is a dumb idea? Please read this one page alone and see if you dont question your beliefs.It was intelligent design not just an accident in an ocean of soup.....



www.creationism.org...

Had to add this as in the other thread there seemed to be a few who wanted to pick and choose when evolution started and it was stated that it started with the first two organisms. This is wrong by their own science as here is a link to what evolutionist believe is the timeline of evolution and according to their very teachings (Harvard and all) it started way before the first two organisms.

www.tufts.edu...





[edit on 19-9-2008 by savagediver]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 


OK, are you sure you are arguing for creation? Mutation is the cornerstone of evolution!

As for your sources, I answered the first one on that thread you were refering to:


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by savagediver
 


OK, let's look at the author of your 'source'. I did some checking, and he has a Bachelor's Degree from Oregon State University and a Masters in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary! A Masters in Theology certainly does not make him an expert in Biology! Try to find a source who actually has some type of science degree, please!

About Thomas Heinze


The second source supports the theory of evolution. Are you sure it's the one you wanted to use?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by savagediver
 


OK, are you sure you are arguing for creation? Mutation is the cornerstone of evolution!

As for your sources, I answered the first one on that thread you were refering to:


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by savagediver
 


OK, let's look at the author of your 'source'. I did some checking, and he has a Bachelor's Degree from Oregon State University and a Masters in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary! A Masters in Theology certainly does not make him an expert in Biology! Try to find a source who actually has some type of science degree, please!

About Thomas Heinze


The second source supports the theory of evolution. Are you sure it's the one you wanted to use?


Got something against the quality of education of theologist????How about trying to discredit the education of these scientist who accept biblical creation:

www.answersingenesis.org...


Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
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
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
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 (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
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. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
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. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
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 Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
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. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
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
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
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
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
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. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
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. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
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. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
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
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
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. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
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
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?
Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
Bias in higher education
Peer pressure and truth
Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination
Science magazine refuses to hire creationist
The not-so-Nobel decision
The tyranny of ‘tolerance’
View scientists of the past who believed in a Creator
Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:

Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
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
Jedidiah Morse (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
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
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
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
Early 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
Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 


See answer on the Why people laugh at creationists thread.

ED. And I do have a problem with the quality of the scientific education of a theologist! Not to mention the bias.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join