Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The Bible does not teach any Zeus-like figure being responsible for casting lightning. But God is responsible in the sense that in creation week He established the laws of nature. And mind you, it was the Biblical worldview that paved the way for modern science and did away with superstitious ideas. Had it not been Christians like Michael Faraday who knows you may still be believing in Zeus today! See http://creation.com/the-creationist-basis-for-modern-science
Yes, I agree with you that humans have created many gods in their own human image. But I am not talking about such gods. I am talking about GOD, the one who created humans in His image.
BTW, as an atheist please answer the question of who created humans.
Christianity is just a broken off religion from Judaism.Judaism has it's origins in Greece.
The extraordinary similarity has, of course, been observed before. It is
greatly to be regretted that many commentators brought baggage of their
own to the debate. Hence, early Christian fathers believed that the devil had
imitated Christian ritual to lead people astray. During the Reformation, the
existence of Pagan ritual in the Catholic Church was one of the central
complaints of Protestants – although this paper will seek to show that a
fundamental similarity of doctrine with Paganism still exists in both
Churches. Later Christian commentators suggested – more convincingly –
that perhaps there is a very narrow range of ritual to which human beings
cleave. Or else they admitted there must have been cross-contamination, but
that the essentials of Christianity were untouched. Around the turn of the
twentieth century, a school of ‘debunkers’ seized upon the same similarities
to try to demonstrate that Jesus was a mere allegory and never existed, and
that Christianity was, in fact, nothing more than a pagan sect itself. Their
determination to fit this quart into a pint pot gave rise to tortuous arguments
– such as attempts to equate the term ‘the Lamb of God’ with the ‘age of
Aries’, and the later Christian fish symbol with the ‘age of Pisces’. With the
decline of traditional Christian worship – just as the required objectivity
became possible – interest has waned, and little study on the subject has
been done at all in recent times.
In this monograph, therefore, the facts are allowed to speak for
themselves. The parallels between pagan and Christian ritual are obvious,
4and intrinsically interesting. What they do demonstrate is the durability of
ritual, long after the original rationale behind it has disappeared. They also
tell us something about the nature of human belief, and the elements (raised
emotion, distinctive costume, the reassuringly familiar combined with the
striking and unusual), which, apparently, help to support and maintain it.
http://www.i-c-r.org.uk/publications/monographarchive/Monograph38.pdf
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
So you can't answer one simple question from a statement drafted by a person or a group of persons from two thousand years ago?
You can't even answer one simple question I asked recently! Tell me, what is the cause of the universe? Still waiting.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Here is a list of moral cowards which your basic existence rely on today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
HYPOCRITE!!!
Aren't you missing something still?
Scientists of the past believed in a Creator
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.
Early
-
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method.
-
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) Physics, Astronomy
- Johann Kepler (1571–1630) Scientific astronomy
- Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
- John Wilkins (1614–1672)
- Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
- Blaise Pascal ((1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
- Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
- Robert Boyle (1627–1691) 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) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator.
- 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
- 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) Archaeologist
- 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) Archaeologist
- 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) Archaeologist
- William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
- Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
- Dr Arthur 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
These are the people who can account for why moral standards exist. BTW, it's not that atheists have no morals, it's just that they cannot account for them. Geddit?
-
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Hasn't anyone realised that things here are going both ways actually?
Not really. I don't think that things are going nicely for the atheist though, esp beta
Hint: The one who keeps up the ad hominem attacks is the one who is losing the argument and having a bad day.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You can't even answer one simple question I asked recently! Tell me, what is the cause of the universe? Still waiting.
Since when you pose this question to me?
You must be pretty confused right now.
The origin of the universe at this present point time is uncertain right now. It's like an analogy I posed earlier, you are like a 100 A.D. man trying to understand lightning, you are unable to explain it, so you attribute the existence of lightning and thunder to Thor (Nordic thunder god) or Zeus (Greek god).
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Not really. I don't think that things are going nicely for the atheist though, esp beta
Hint: The one who keeps up the ad hominem attacks is the one who is losing the argument and having a bad day.
actually things are not going nicely for both. from what i see... things are going the same way for both -
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Christianity is just a broken off religion from Judaism.Judaism has it's origins in Greece.
The extraordinary similarity has, of course, been observed before. It is
greatly to be regretted that many commentators brought baggage of their
own to the debate. Hence, early Christian fathers believed that the devil had
imitated Christian ritual to lead people astray. During the Reformation, the
existence of Pagan ritual in the Catholic Church was one of the central
complaints of Protestants – although this paper will seek to show that a
fundamental similarity of doctrine with Paganism still exists in both
Churches. Later Christian commentators suggested – more convincingly –
that perhaps there is a very narrow range of ritual to which human beings
cleave. Or else they admitted there must have been cross-contamination, but
that the essentials of Christianity were untouched. Around the turn of the
twentieth century, a school of ‘debunkers’ seized upon the same similarities
to try to demonstrate that Jesus was a mere allegory and never existed, and
that Christianity was, in fact, nothing more than a pagan sect itself. Their
determination to fit this quart into a pint pot gave rise to tortuous arguments
– such as attempts to equate the term ‘the Lamb of God’ with the ‘age of
Aries’, and the later Christian fish symbol with the ‘age of Pisces’. With the
decline of traditional Christian worship – just as the required objectivity
became possible – interest has waned, and little study on the subject has
been done at all in recent times.
In this monograph, therefore, the facts are allowed to speak for
themselves. The parallels between pagan and Christian ritual are obvious,
4
and intrinsically interesting. What they do demonstrate is the durability of
ritual, long after the original rationale behind it has disappeared. They also
tell us something about the nature of human belief, and the elements (raised
emotion, distinctive costume, the reassuringly familiar combined with the
striking and unusual), which, apparently, help to support and maintain it.
http://www.i-c-r.org.uk/publications/monographarchive/Monograph38.pdf
Talk about sprouting nonsense! Only ignorant people will say that Judaism's roots are in Greece.
But as usual, instead of sticking to the SIX QUESTIONS that atheists must answer you go on an elephant hurling spree. Lame tactic still.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Since when you pose this question to me?
You must be pretty confused right now.
The origin of the universe at this present point time is uncertain right now. It's like an analogy I posed earlier, you are like a 100 A.D. man trying to understand lightning, you are unable to explain it, so you attribute the existence of lightning and thunder to Thor (Nordic thunder god) or Zeus (Greek god).
So you are telling me that as an atheist you DON'T KNOW what is the cause of the universe? Please don't try to throw a red herring with that lightning thingy, I have already addressed it.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
actually things are not going nicely for both. from what i see... things are going the same way for bothI beg to differ. Beta don't seem to be able to cough out the answers. He just go on attack mode without supplying much answers at all.
-
Can I ask you one question?
Are you a University graduate?
What's your highest attainment level for Science (e.g. physics, chemistry and biology)?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I beg to differ. Beta don't seem to be able to cough out the answers. He just go on attack mode without supplying much answers at all.
Now I am on the one beating around the bush?
How deluded are we?
-
If your only subjects in school are divinity without any scientific subjects, you will be able to hear god talking to you very soon.
-
Religion has always played an important part in man's life, as it is a source of spiritual comfort in times of distress. The happenings in legends and myths represent an idealized version of the world that man hopes for the world to become, thus we always see that the monster who eats children is killed by the god or warrior in the end, proving the motto "Good Triumphs Over Evil" to be true. However, in real life, it is not necessarily true that the antagonist always meets with a bad end, while the protagonist triumphs; rather it is often the other way round!
Under this topic, we will explore the various customs, traditions and religions that existed during the time of the ancient civilizations. We will also see how these customs, traditions and religions still apply to the modern world today and their importance in the past as compared to the present.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/religion/main.htm
-
During the ancient times, religion played an important part in the lives of the people and many different types of gods were worshipped. Why was there the need of a god? What was the importance of a god?
For the Aryans of ancient India, they worshipped gods of Nature around them. This was because they could not understand or control the elements and hence, invested them with divinity and personified them For instance, Indra was the war god (thunder and rainmaker) and the most honoured of the Aryan gods. Surya was the sun god. Agni was the fire god; the power to heal, save, defend or destroy. It was a very important god, as fire was a very important element used in the sacrifice of animals. Marriages were also solemnised in the presence of fire. Male gods were dominant. There were 33 gods where there was no hierarchy. The Aryans did not ignore the unity of god; they did believe in a supreme god where all others were manifestations.
The Mayas believed that nature was closely related to the world of the supernatural. Thus, they worshipped many different types of gods that were too, like those of the Indians, related to nature. One example was the sun god called Kinich Ahau. They also believed that they could communicate with the gods who dwell in heaven through prayers, visions, and sacrifice. Another god of nature that they worshipped was the World Tree, which they believed was a giant blue-green tree that connected the world of humans to the supernatural world of spirits and gods. Gods were portrayed as men, women, animals, or creatures that looked like either a person or an animal. Each day, month and number was associated with a god. For example, the number 4 was associated with the sun god and the number 10 was associated with the death god. Which number do you think the rain god represented? (Answer:13)
Greek gods were important too in ancient Greece. Every god and goddess had his or her own religious festival, and there were more than sixty festival days each year. The people offered sacrifices on the altar outside the Parthenon, the largest and most splendid of the temples, before going in to pray to the goddess Athena, the patron goddess of the city. Private devotion was important, as well. Houses had their own altars where families could place offerings to the gods, hoping to receive blessings or avert punishments. Athenians also asked their gods and goddesses for advice about the future through oracles, or fortune-tellers.
The Egyptians worshipped a number of gods and goddesses, most of which were believed to possess a human form, although some had the heads of birds and animals. There was Ra, the sun-god, who was believed to journey across the sky each day with the sun in a boat. There was Osiris, ruler of the underworld, who was said to judge all dead people, to determine if they would be allowed to enter the afterlife. There was the goddess Isis, wife of Osiris and mistress of magic and Horus, son of Isis and Osiris, and god of the sky. Horus was often pictured with the head of a falcon, and it was believed that he had the power to enter into the very body and soul of the pharaoh. The pharaoh was therefore a very unique being - a link between god and man. Since he was thought to communicate with the other gods, the pharaoh also served as the high priest who officiated at major religious festivals.
The Sumers worshipped many gods as well. The most important god was Anu, the father of all gods and the lord of heaven. There was also Enlil, the god of earth and Enki, the god of the waters. Other gods of nature included gods of the rivers and mountains, sun, moon, winds, storms, and planets. There were also personal gods. Sumerians believed that it was their duty to feed and shelter their gods and thus, built numerous temples for the gods to live in.
The ancient Chinese too, believed in gods of nature - in mountains, rivers, forests, trees and rocks. (Why do you think gods were associated with nature in the past? Hint: Consider how the occupation of most of the people in the past. How did they obtain their food?) They also worshipped the souls of dead rulers for protection and blessings.
Even today, some Chinese still pray to the souls of the dead, especially to their ancestors for the same reasons as in the past: protection and blessing. Most Chinese still pray to certain gods of nature such as the earth god and Chu Jung, god of fire. In addition, the Chinese believe in other gods too, such as the god of wealth, the goddess of mercy and the god of war. The god of wealth is an important god to the present-day Chinese, especially to Chinese merchants and businessmen, as they believe that praying to the god of wealth would enable their businesses to prosper and their wealth to increase!
Gods are still worshipped in other parts of the world today as well. For instance, Indians today, who believe in Hinduism, a religion which will be covered in the next article, still worship Hindu gods such as Brahma the Creator, Shiva the Destroyer and Vishnu the Preserver
What are the gods that the people of your country worship? What is the importance of the gods that they worship?
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Can I ask you one question?
Are you a University graduate?
What's your highest attainment level for Science (e.g. physics, chemistry and biology)?
Another red herring?
Does it matter what's my educational qualifications? Just deal with the arguments raised please. The question of origins is NOT a science question per se, it's a historical one. All you need is eyes that see and a brain that works, and some common sense would be adequate for most people to deal with the main issues.
And for what it's worth, I'm no scientist.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Now I am on the one beating around the bush?
How deluded are we?
If you ain't beating round the bush, please go to Post #1 and answer the Six Questions please.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Another red herring?
Does it matter what's my educational qualifications? Just deal with the arguments raised please. The question of origins is NOT a science question per se, it's a historical one. All you need is eyes that see and a brain that works, and some common sense would be adequate for most people to deal with the main issues.
And for what it's worth, I'm no scientist.
Question of origin is not a scientific question?
So you would not accept scientific theories on the origins of life which proof was provided for.
You'd rather accept a christian god who banish non-believers to hell (even handicapped, intellectually challenged) which cannot be verified by physical laws.
If you are blind, how are you going to lead?
If you want to go on an evangelism, go take out some scientific studies and rebut all the scientific theories.
They use to think that the earth revolved around the sun, but Gallileo was persecuted because he thinks otherwise.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Aren't you missing something still?
Scientists of the past believed in a Creator
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.
Early
-
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method.
-
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) Physics, Astronomy
- Johann Kepler (1571–1630) Scientific astronomy
- Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
- John Wilkins (1614–1672)
- Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
- Blaise Pascal ((1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
- Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
- Robert Boyle (1627–1691) 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) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator.
- 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
- 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) Archaeologist
- 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) Archaeologist
- 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) Archaeologist
- William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
- Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
- Dr Arthur 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
These are the people who can account for why moral standards exist. BTW, it's not that atheists have no morals, it's just that they cannot account for them. Geddit?
Your list in the modern period seem to lack alot of physcist, only doctors and rock pickers.
-
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Question of origin is not a scientific question?
So you would not accept scientific theories on the origins of life which proof was provided for.
You'd rather accept a christian god who banish non-believers to hell (even handicapped, intellectually challenged) which cannot be verified by physical laws.
If you are blind, how are you going to lead?
If you want to go on an evangelism, go take out some scientific studies and rebut all the scientific theories.
They use to think that the earth revolved around the sun, but Gallileo was persecuted because he thinks otherwise.
i think he could not accept because he felt that scientific prove is not substantiative enough to prove the origin of universe. thats my guess, im probably wrong.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
If your only subjects in school are divinity without any scientific subjects, you will be able to hear god talking to you very soon.
Most of us who have gone through or are going through the Singapore education system have some knowledge of elementary science. BTW, what school here offers subjects in divinity only?
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Religion has always played an important part in man's life, as it is a source of spiritual comfort in times of distress. The happenings in legends and myths represent an idealized version of the world that man hopes for the world to become, thus we always see that the monster who eats children is killed by the god or warrior in the end, proving the motto "Good Triumphs Over Evil" to be true. However, in real life, it is not necessarily true that the antagonist always meets with a bad end, while the protagonist triumphs; rather it is often the other way round!
Under this topic, we will explore the various customs, traditions and religions that existed during the time of the ancient civilizations. We will also see how these customs, traditions and religions still apply to the modern world today and their importance in the past as compared to the present.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/religion/main.htm
I think you should start a new thread rather than to sideline the whole thread by going off topic on another thread.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I think you should start a new thread rather than to sideline the whole thread by going off topic on another thread.
What topic did I sideline to?
Everything I brought up is related to your topic.
It's just hard for you to drop your sole source of spiritual reliance.
I understand.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
i think he could not accept because he felt that scientific prove is not substantiative enough to prove the origin of universe. thats my guess, im probably wrong.
I believe all religions are good, cause they teach people to be good.
I don't believe in a superior religion like Christianity who claims they are the ultimate in godliness and all other religions are fake.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Question of origin is not a scientific question?
So you would not accept scientific theories on the origins of life which proof was provided for.
You'd rather accept a christian god who banish non-believers to hell (even handicapped, intellectually challenged) which cannot be verified by physical laws.
If you are blind, how are you going to lead?
If you want to go on an evangelism, go take out some scientific studies and rebut all the scientific theories.
They use to think that the earth revolved around the sun, but Gallileo was persecuted because he thinks otherwise.
Think about it, the question of origins is about what happened in the past, it's history. Science is mainly about the observable present, repeated and controlled testings, collection of data and interpretation.
Scientific theories about the past are not really scientific, since you CANNOT test them. Or do you have a time-machine to observe the past?
That unbelievers go to hell is IRRELEVANT to the question of the origins of the universe. Why are you throwing red herrings all over the place?
Since when is a scientific qualification required for evangelism? The Bible does not teach that. In any case, is a qualification required to talk about origins?
Regarding the Galileo case, it seems that you are still perpetuating myths about what really happened. Please get the facts here http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial and http://creation.com/the-galileo-twist
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
What topic did I sideline to?
Everything I brought up is related to your topic.
It's just hard for you to drop your sole source of spiritual reliance.
I understand.
Really? Then please relate your posts to one of the six questions of Post #1.