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.
John Philoponus (c.490–c.570) Alexandria egypt.jpg He was a figure in the Monophysitism minority of Eastern Christianity. His criticism of Aristotelian physics was important to Medieval science. He also theorized about the nature of light and the stars. As a theologian he rejected the Council of Chalcedon and his major Christological work is Arbiter.[note 1][2]
Isidore of Seville (c.560–c.636) Isidor von Sevilla.jpeg Catholic Archbishop who preserved many scientific selections from the ancient worlds. His most popular work was Etymologiae which contained information on medicine, mathematics, astronomy, atomic theory, geography, agriculture, zoology, minerology, physiology, and other topics. His work was widely used throughout the medieval ages for its extent of research topics. [3]
Bede, the Venerable (c.672–735) Nuremberg Chronicle Venerable Bede.jpg Catholic monk, venerated as a saint and Doctor of the Church. He was an influence for early medieval knowledge of nature. He wrote two works on "Time and its Reckoning." This primarily concerned how to date Easter, but contained a new recognition of the "progress wave-like" nature of tides.[4]
Rabanus Maurus (c.780–856) Raban-Maur Alcuin Otgar.jpg Benedictine monk and teacher, he later became archbishop of Mainz and is venerated as blessed in the Catholic Church. He wrote a treatise on Computus and the encyclopedic work De universo. His teaching earned him the accolade of Praeceptor Germaniae, or "the teacher of Germany."[5]
Leo the Mathematician (c.790–a.869) Map of Constantinople (1422) by Florentine cartographer Cristoforo Buondelmonte.jpg Archbishop of Thessalonica, he later became the head of the Magnaura School of philosophy in Constantinople, where he taught Aristotelian logic. Leo also composed his own medical encyclopaedia. He has been called a "true Renaissance man" and "the cleverest man in Byzantium in the 9th century".[6][7][8]
Hunayn ibn Ishaq (c.809–873) Cheshm manuscript.jpg Assyrian Christian physician known for translations of Greek scientific works and as author of "Ten Treatises on Ophthalmology." The image shows a picture inspired by his anatomical descriptions of the eye. He also wrote "How to Grasp Religion", which involved the apologetics for his faith.[9]
Theodoric of Freiberg
(c.1250–c.1310) Rainbow in Budapest.jpg Dominican who is believed to have given the first correct explanation for the rainbow in De iride et radialibus impressionibus or On the Rainbow. In theology he disagreed with Thomas Aquinas on metaphysical positions and tended towards a more Neoplatonic outlook than Aquinas.[25]
Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290–1349) Small Mitre.svg He was an English archbishop, often called "the Profound Doctor". He developed studies as one of the Oxford Calculators of Merton College, Oxford University. These studies would lead to important developments in mechanics.[26]
William of Ockham
(c.1285–c.1350) William of Ockham.png He was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher. He is a major figure of medieval thought and was at the center of the major intellectual and political controversies of his time. Commonly known for Occam's razor, the scientific/methodological principle that bears his name, he also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.[27]
Jean Buridan (c.1300–c.1358) Kanonik.png He was a Catholic priest and one of the most influential philosophers of the later Middle Ages. He developed the theory of impetus, which was an important step toward the modern concept of inertia.[28]
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh BullSh*t! My IQ tested at 156 +/- 4 points. I believe in God and think Darwinism is false.
Are we all natural or are we all supernatural?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Stormdancer777
Are we all natural or are we all supernatural?
What gives us the right to define something as "natural", "unnatural" or "supernatural"? Modern science has existed for 200 years. I think it would be reasonable to say we don't know squat about "natural". Out of the 0.00000000000000000001% of the observable universe that we occupy, we see 1% of what is actually there.
I think we overstep ourselves in defining natural vs supernatural. Perhaps there's a "natural" that exists beyond what we've observed of nature. We just don't have the biology to see it, or even think of trying to see it.
Originally posted by Nacirema
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh BullSh*t! My IQ tested at 156 +/- 4 points. I believe in God and think Darwinism is false.
Can you and your purported high IQ tell me why Darwinism is false?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
Just thought I'd mention here that while Serenity is determined to prove evolution false, he still doesn't have a better theory to replace it. Which means that his thread does very little to support the premise of this thread, besides proving that 200 years of scientific development leaves quite a lot of room for growth. But we already knew that.edit on 13-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Nacirema
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh BullSh*t! My IQ tested at 156 +/- 4 points. I believe in God and think Darwinism is false.
Can you and your purported high IQ tell me why Darwinism is false?
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh BullSh*t! My IQ tested at 156 +/- 4 points. I believe in God and think Darwinism is false.
Originally posted by rigel4
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh BullSh*t! My IQ tested at 156 +/- 4 points. I believe in God and think Darwinism is false.
- anorther 100pts for not believing evolution/Darwinism
lol
...should be shouldn't have.
Ok, sorry, done pointing out my ironies for the day.
Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by predator0187
This is a statistic not a rule and should be thought of in that fashion, Often intelligence is worked out by IQ which itself is a flawed system using knowledge and programmed thought process tests.
Did you know the head of the Human Genome project is a Christian whom found his faith late in life, Also these statistics may vary by nation and region so should be revised to include region.
This is not a finding, this is a statistical analysis, Often those more willing to be less scrupulous are less likely to believe in god so there lower scruples make them more financially successful but what of there real quality's as people, boy you have started a debate here.
I will just stand and watch for now.
Richard Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, I neither like nor trust that guy he makes my skin crawl.
edit on 12-8-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)
Not to mention that most of the real science and physics that we use today was discovered and developed by Christians.