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.

 

Why do people laugh at creationists?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
What makes this argument so silly-njCARGUY- is you saying evolution is a fact. You know that because...? This is your research??? or just what you've read and what you want to believe?

I know that there are more scientists this year than last year that are realizing that there had to be intelligence to create order of this magnitude. I don't think it takes rocket science to see all the holes in the theory of evolution. Theory is not fact.... btw anywhere near greenbrook?08886?

People bashing creationists.. A group of the Superior race I suppose.




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Ok back on topic.There are differing views of creation among creationist and the non-creationist lumps them all into one category without any open minded intellictual thought to the matter.I believe they laugh because it is easier for them to do then to try and educate themselves on the differing views of creationists.I believe they are way to close minded to even attempt to learn of any other view then what they have been exsposed to by either their parents,schools or click of friends.I think they laugh out of ignorance.I say ignorance because ignorance is a lack of knowledge on a subject and obviously without ever looking into the differing views of creation you are ignorant on this subject therefore you laugh at something you have not educated yourself on in the first place.Before you start your rant about 6 days yadda,yadda try and expand your mind just slightly and understand some of us truly believe that you cant box God in and pretend you know what a day is to God.There are many different verses that give some of the different scales of time in the bible.If you laugh because of this that is all fine with me, I will just believe you laugh out of ignorance because science has not proved how life has started.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Yes and that was back before they had very much knowledge.Very little knowldge indeed.Creationist are not all of the same mind and there is more evidence in the Info of DNA that simply did not exist then.Take just another example of the knowledge that was not presented at the trail.

“… no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA.”[Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 65, see also 62-6]. Many atheists today are leaving a false argument about proteins to accept an even more false argument about RNA. The fact that RNA is vital to the life of every cell, and cannot be made except by already living cells is powerful evidence against life forming without a Creator.


To greatly multiply the impossibility that RNA formed by itself, the sugars in RNA must all be right-handed instead of the normal half and half. Hiding these facts, some schoolbooks now make the formation of RNA sound as easy as they made protein formation sound to previous generations of students. Here is an example:


“First, RNA nucleotides formed from simple gas molecules in much the same way as in experiments similar to those done by Miller and Urey. Nucleotides then assembled spontaneously into small chains…. These small chains were able to make copies of themselves. Once replicating molecules like these appear, natural selection and evolution are possible.”[Holt, Annotated Teacher’s Edition, Biology, Visualizing Life, 1994, p. 201].


This quote and others like it are science fiction. Scientists have of course repeated the experiment of Stanley Miller and his teacher Urey many times in many variations. Neither RNA nor nucleotides, their building blocks, will form, nor could nucleotides have sorted for all right-handed sugars. This is real evidence that has been put to the test.

www.creationism.org...



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by savagediver
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

I will just believe you laugh out of ignorance because science has not proved how life has started.


Creationists calling ANYONE ignorant is funny, not out of ignorance, but because it IS funny.








[edit on 9/19/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Me thinks my teacher should first explain why his definition of evolution starts with the first two organisms..Seems to me that my "teacher" might just be wrong about where most of the scientists think evolution begins.Sorry for failing your class "teach"


www.tufts.edu...

Hope this helps you out with any of the classes you might "teach" in the future.I sincerely hope you guys can educate yourselves a little more before you lump everyone who believes in creationism into one nice little package.Anyone who laughs at another by lumping them into a catagory without understanding there are variations of the term is not a very good teacher and should educate themselves more before they attempt to teach.

I have enough experience in 45 years of life to know by the posts I have read that there are many that have psted to this thread who do not want to try and research anything but want to stick to preconcieved notions.I will leave it at.I do find it interesting that so many laugh at a subject I dont think they have done very much research in.If you will only take the time to at least study some of the very compelling facts I will post some more sites with information from SCIENTISTS who do believe in creation if you want to stick to your beliefs without looking inot anything further so be it.Laugh at us in your ignorance.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 

your missing the point

believing in creation DOES NOT make you a creationist
believing in evolution DOES NOT make you an athiest either


do you believe the world to be 6-10 thousand years old only?

do you believe all life on earth poofed into existance in the forms they are in now?

do you believe all this happened in 6 days?

do you believe the bible to be an exact realtime account of how we all got here?

answering yes to all of the above makes you a christian creationist and it is you we laugh at with your silly 6 days magic trick, and your nothing changed ever dispite all the evidence (and theres lots)

its an atheist that says there is no god,

an evolutionist says i dont care what started it im interested in what it did and where its going

so you can mix creation belief with evolution and it makes no differance, unless you believe that its god personally poking and controlling it that makes you an follower of the intelegant design theory

what many christians seem to do is go owe noes here comes the darwinists and all try and defend each other even though they have differing beliefs

believing its an us verses them situation, creationism disproves It as thats evolution with god prodding it instead of chance and enviroment. but you will see creationists and IT's both attacking evolutionism as if they are the same thing if they ever did manage to prove evolution wrong they would turn on each other instantly as It's dont do the 6 day magic trick belief


[edit on 19/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 19/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


I am not missing the point....I have already posted some believe like myself that there can be creation and evolution.

You state:

an evolutionist says i dont care what started it im interested in what it did and where its going


I beg to differ as I posted earlier.From the Wright center for science education:

www.tufts.edu...


I think I am finished debating.Believe what you will, laugh at me if you will, heck I laugh at myself alot too.


I have only been trying to explain how some of us think and if it is funny that is ok with me.Not all people believe the same way but can co-exist just fine.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 





What were the first living cells like?

Scientists don’t know for sure, for we lack good data from the first 2 billion years of Earth’s history—a period known as the Archaean. Most likely they were tentative microscopic entities—microbes fragile enough to be destroyed by strong bursts of energy, yet sturdy enough to reproduce, thereby giving rise to generations of descendants.


no no still not seeing where it says how life began, it says once there was life it probabily did .......




creationism
A noun
1 creationism

the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"


this is what a creationist is. someone with a literal belief, not gods days doesnt mean our days, or we cant really understand gods thoughts

it is a literal belief that the bible is exactly correct in the human time scale
detailing the creation of the earth the universe life everything

6 days
animals appeared as they are now
adam was made from dirt
eve from a bit of adam ripped out of him

to beleive anything else makes you an evolution/creation IT/creation hybrid or somthing different. many of your beliefs may be simialr to a creationist but have a different interpretation meaning it ISNT creationism

creationism by its own volition that it happened exactly the way it does in the bible as the bible is the exact word of god leaves no room to interpret anything. no matter how similar you are if your not exactly the same as us your not one of us


[edit on 19/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


For the sake of a label I will consider myself creation/evolution.I do not take the bible the same way as a strict creationist does.I do believe in the basic substance of the bible to be truth.That is just my belief.For those who want to take the bible literally word for word that is ok with me too if that is what they wish to believe.If someone wants to say the whole thing is just bs that is their view and I am ok with that too , as their belief is just that, theirs.I

The main thing I had a problem with is everyone who believes in intelligent design and creation being thrown into the same pot and being called ignorant.People can laugh at em and ridicule em all they want but it wont change their mind.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
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

Now 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! Your arguments are as laughable as those in the videos provided by the OP!



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

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

Now 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! Your arguments are as laughable as those in the videos provided by the OP!


His article (and that was just one page) has many quotes by scientists.

Obviuosly you are a young person with a very short attention span.I have stated twice already that I belive in creation/evolution.Stay away from the video games and tv a bit and your attention span should increase.

Here is a list for you......link provided in case the mods delete this as it is legnthy.It is a list of scientist who believe in creation:


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
Is there a list of those who are against the biblical view of creation?
A Who’s Who of Evolutionists
Q&A: Countering the Critics
Other biographies and interviews of interest
David Aikman, journalist
Basil of Caesarea
Gary and Meri Bell, underwater photographers
Hillmon Buckingham, Salvation Army Commissioner
Calvin says: Genesis means what it says
Steve Cardno, Creation Magazine art director
Betty Cuthbert, Olympic champion
Thyrza Davey, illustrator and author
Buddy Davis, sculptor, singer
Ralph DiCosimo, police officer
Pete Dobré, creationist photographer
Carol Drew, Creation photographer
Ken Duncan, photographer
Chang-Sha Fang, plant scientist
Jim Farquhar, geologist
Sergei Golovin, geophysicist
Russell Grigg, chemist
David and Doreen Hart
Johnny Hart, cartoonist
Paul James-Griffiths, missionary to the New Age Movement
Robert Jensen, photographer
Dr. Douglas Kelly, academic theologian
Dan Lietha, cartoonist
Dr. George Lindsey, associate professor of science education
Martin Lloyd-Jones, evangelist
Prof. Marvin Lubenow, anthropology
Luther on Evolution, and What was Martin Luther’s stand on Creation/Evolution? (Christian Answers Network)
Lou Moss, photographer
William J. Murray, son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair
Michael Oard, atmospheric scientist
Jules H Poirier, design engineer
Gary Raymond, law enforcement
Peter and Cathy Sparrow, Creation Bus
Joe Taylor, paleontologist
Dr. Ting Wang, lecturer in biblical Hebrew
Prof. Hannington Enoch, zoologist, ‘The man who got me hunting down evolution!’ by David C.C. Watson, author of Myths and Miracles
Dr. John Whitcomb, theologian (interview)
John Woodmorappe, geologist







[edit on 19-9-2008 by savagediver]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Didnt get the link in there but here it is.This is a list of scientists who believe in creation.

www.answersingenesis.org...



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 


Wow, a complete list of the 5% of the scientific community that supports creationism. What I'm confused about is that if you are a creation/evolution supporter, why are you so adamately defending the Genesis myth?

As to your assumption that I must be a young man, WRONG! I have almost a half century behind me, and have spent most of my adult life researching spiritual matters and systems of belief in human culture, both ancient and modern. I have a deep faith in the Divine, and my view of the origin of the universe is actually quite a bit more awe inspiring than the silly children's story of Genesis!



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by savagediver
 


Wow, a complete list of the 5% of the scientific community that supports creationism. What I'm confused about is that if you are a creation/evolution supporter, why are you so adamately defending the Genesis myth?

As to your assumption that I must be a young man, WRONG! I have almost a half century behind me, and have spent most of my adult life researching spiritual matters and systems of belief in human culture, both ancient and modern. I have a deep faith in the Divine, and my view of the origin of the universe is actually quite a bit more awe inspiring than the silly children's story of Genesis!



We share a common denominator in age, but have a few differences.I most obviously have a differnet belief than you in the bible.I dont nit pick it to death and get into a game of semantics with what is written.It is my belief that God's time and way of thinking and doing is way out of our realm of grasping.I think the bible was inspired and was given to man as a guide for knowing Him and how we should live.No in my mind I dont think the whole of everything was created in 6 days but I also realize that I am not God and cant grasp many things.The fact is I believe God created the world and how many days it took him and how it was done matters not to me.I believe that the answer to this and many other questions will be revealed to us in his time and will probably not be while we walk on this earth.


I think most of the nit picking and semantics games ( have to take into account mistranslations and meanings of various things from a hebrew way of writing) is a distraction from the truths and the real substance of the Bible.I am not going to continue on much more but to say I think it folly to laugh at those who want to take the Bible literally.If they choose to and they get laughed at I am sure they will survive as will I if any laughs at me or puts me down for my beliefs.

The biggest reason I even bothered saying anything at all is the fact that if you believe in intelligent design/creation you get ridiculed period weither you believe God created the world in six days literally or believe that God created the world and his days might be a billion years each.I dont get too caught up in the semantics , I just believe.I would be very interested in your awe inspiring view as I am very open minded and always love to learn of others ideas and beliefs.To learn is a very good way to grow and to learn about others.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 


Then perhaps our opinions are not as different as we both originally thought. It seems from what you said that you are a contextualist, which is very different than a literalist. I do not dispute that when viewing the Bible in a contextual way, that it has much wisdom. My problem with literalists is that they take is as fact, instead of a source of wisdom on how to live a good life. Let's face it, divine inspiration or not, it was written by man, and therefore has some of the writer's biases. The same can be said for any Holy Books from any religion. One must study the culture that wrote such books in order to truly understand the contents. Believing in God does not mean that you cannot accept science, but too many literalists would differ from me in that opinion. I include all literalists with that statement, including Muslims and Jews. In my studies I have found that those who follow the Abrahamic Religions are the most fanatical in this respect. If they would show respect for those who disagree with their views, then I would be more than happy to show them the same respect. Instead I find myself being called an aethiest or Satanist (which is laughable, as I don't believe such a being exists!), neither of which is true. I am of the belief that the Creator knew what exact conditions were necessary for life to begin, and with the Big Bang created those conditions. The Creator is a being of infinite patience. I also believe that the Creator is The Universe itself, including all of the higher dimensions put forth in Quantum String Theory. I'm actually surprised that I have yet to hear one theist to claim that science has proven the existance of 'Heaven' with this aspect of Physics. Einstein postulated that energy never disapates and organized energy never disorganizes. Science has recently discovered that the entire universe is composed of energy, and that it's all connected. This to me seems to justify the existance of the soul, and it's connection to a greater Universal Mind. Given this, I can no longer look up at the sky at night without being awestruck by it's complexity, which is why such a simple story as Genesis seems childlike to me.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
You are right my friend , we are way more alike than different.Due to lack of sleep am a bit fuzzy minded and may have been debating myself


I dont laugh so hard at literalists as if it helps them with their faith and life I am all for that.I am however like you against the intolerance of some literalists as I am against agnostics who are intolerant of those who believe in God.The big problem is everyone being lumped into one big group I think.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 


Exactly! We were given freewill for a reason. I don't like it when others seem to think they know what's best for me, how I should think and what I should believe. Believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. I guess we all tend to take things a little personally when debating our beliefs in a forum such as this, but sometimes places like this are the only place where we feel comfortable even having such discussions.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
During a relatively brief period of churchgoing, I asked the pastor who was teaching my Sunday School class about fossils and dinosaurs, and where they came from.

He replied that either God put them there, or Satan did.

This had me scratching my head, although I didn't laugh.

Stating that God requires us to believe in him partly through faith based on minimal evidence is one thing, and within the context of religion and the "loving parent" God model I can see it. As parents, humans expect their kids to believe what they tell them even when there often isn't much empirical evidence to put forth.

But, in my opinion, to say that God requires us to believe in him through faith in spite of false evidence planted to deceive us, either by God or Satan, is an entirely different situation. Why would a loving God who wants us all to get to Heaven do things - or allow Satan to do things - that he has to know will make it much harder for most humans to believe his version of events?

Equally preposterous to me is the idea that God planted fossils and dinosaur bones as some kind of huge joke. Will he be laughing all the way while those of us who believed what the fossils, physical things we could see, touch, measure, and examine, seemed to be telling us are sinking into Hell? Some joke from a loving God.

That's like showing your kid all the charges for his Christmas presents on your credit card statement and then still expecting him to believe that elves made them in the North Pole and Santa Claus brought them on Christmas Eve. What loving parent would do something like that?

I think there's more to the story than we know, either way, but the Creationists lost me when they had to blame God or Satan for "planting" fossils in order to explain their existence.

I never got around to asking about carbon dating and the ages of rocks and all that sort of thing, but I can only guess that the explanation would be similar - and equally difficult for me to accept.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


If only more people had the intelligence to look at it that way!

I has occured to me lately that 'Common Sense' isn't very common anymore!

The same could be said for common courtesy!



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by savagediver
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Me thinks my teacher should first explain why his definition of evolution starts with the first two organisms..Seems to me that my "teacher" might just be wrong about where most of the scientists think evolution begins.Sorry for failing your class "teach"


Because evolution is the process by which populations of a species diverge into new species. This is acheived by genetic drift (breeding) and natural selection (competition). For breeding or competition, you need at the very least, two organisms. For one population to diverge from another population, there need to be two populations to start with.


www.tufts.edu...


it is indeed interesting what you can pull up simply by typing "evolution" into google. I was under assumption we were discussing the Theory of Evolution, not "evolution" in a broad, cosmic sense. The Theory of Evolution is exactly what I've told you.


Hope this helps you out with any of the classes you might "teach" in the future.I sincerely hope you guys can educate yourselves a little more before you lump everyone who believes in creationism into one nice little package.Anyone who laughs at another by lumping them into a catagory without understanding there are variations of the term is not a very good teacher and should educate themselves more before they attempt to teach.


Oh, i'm very aware of the many variations of creationism. I see no problem with a person believing that evolution is a process that their Deity of Choice uses to change its own creation. The trouble is when people try to present that opinion as actual science. This necessitates proof of such a deitiy or deities. Believe whatever you want, just don't pretend it's science.


I have enough experience in 45 years of life to know by the posts I have read that there are many that have psted to this thread who do not want to try and research anything but want to stick to preconcieved notions.I will leave it at.I do find it interesting that so many laugh at a subject I dont think they have done very much research in.If you will only take the time to at least study some of the very compelling facts I will post some more sites with information from SCIENTISTS who do believe in creation if you want to stick to your beliefs without looking inot anything further so be it.Laugh at us in your ignorance.


Yes, I saw your list. I found the inclusion of Francis Bacon rather interesting, seeing as how he's been dead for five hundred years and lived in a time where the church killed unbelievers.

Want to impress me? Find me a list of scientists in the fields of biology or geology who not only believe in creation, but also believe it's scientific fact.

Also, you might want to pare the experts in tropical fruit, the dentists, and linguists from that list. 'Cause, let's be honest, if a dentist's belief in a deity is integral to his practice, he's not a dentist I would visit (last thing I want to hear before the drill starts up is "Do you believe in an afterlife?")

[edit on 20-9-2008 by TheWalkingFox]







 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join