# Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322 "2013-07-01T06:22:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/481 "2013-07-16T13:27:58Z")
> [@Okieshowedem](#): > > When the Real Hebrew Messiah walked here He said we are FOOLS if we don’t believe ALL that he prophets have spoken. Luke 24:25. > > Now when we read the Scriptures and we understand what Yahshua Ben Nun said in Yahshua 10:12-14 then we believe the Scriptures over to lying preacher boy and the deceived world teacher we see that Galileo was a FOOL. How do you know the book you are quoting is accurate? ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/482 "2013-07-16T17:57:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > _[…] test the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, the restricted definition, which let them show it did not happen. Which they did, and thus they falsified the hypothesis._ > > That is a confusing phrasing more deserving of reproach from a grammatical standpoint than your “typo” (which I should probably not have commented on; I have committed worse ones). > > _But thanks for demonstrating your total ignorance of the scientific method._ > > The last I heard, the scientific method was to test a hypothesis with facts, and if the facts are lacking, to reject the hypothesis. (This procedure seems to be routinely bypassed in evolutionary thinking.) As far as the experiments by Redi and Pasteur are concerned, no facts are more obvious than those of direct observation (by the eyes). So, Nice try, Voyager–close but no cigar. > > _Do you object to the chemical soup or the tens of millions of years? (It might be hundreds of millions.) Or are you objecting to a non-magical explanation of the origin of life?_ Why are you bringing “(non-)magical” into this? Unless you consider the deliberate, organized effort by a supreme being to be “magical” and the spontaneous, no-thought effort by something to transmute itself into something else as “natural.”:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/483 "2013-07-16T19:08:39Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Aw gee, I made a typo. > However you don’t appear to know much about science. Falsification means that they set up an experiment to test the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, the restricted definition, which let them show it did not happen. Which they did, and thus they falsified the hypothesis. But thanks for demonstrating your total ignorance of the scientific method. > > Do you object to the chemical soup or the tens of millions of years? (It might be hundreds of millions.) Or are you objecting to a non-magical explanation of the origin of life? Abiogenesis would seem magical, as it would violate the laws of biogenesis. > **[Spontaneous generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis)** > > Spontaneous generation is a superseded scientific theory that held that living creatures could arise from non-living matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. It was hypothesized that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. The doctrine of spontaneous generation was coherently synthesized by the Greek philosopher and naturalist Aristotle, who compiled and expanded the work of earlier natural p... ‘Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2]’ ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/484 "2013-07-16T19:10:09Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > How do you know the book you are quoting is accurate? If you would like to cite what you think is the biggest inaccuracy in the BIble, that will be explained to you gladly. One at a time if you wish, please. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/485 "2013-07-16T19:20:07Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If you would like to cite what you think is the biggest inaccuracy in the BIble, that will be explained to you gladly. One at a time if you wish, please. The world-wide flood that covered the Earth. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/486 "2013-07-16T19:20:51Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Abiogenesis would seem magical, as it would violate the laws of biogenesis. > > [Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis) > ‘Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2]’ Since you like wikipedia, please read [this entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). On a side note, aren’t you a fan of magic? I mean, what did your deity use to create life if not magic? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/487 "2013-07-16T19:23:29Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If you would like to cite what you think is the biggest inaccuracy in the BIble, that will be explained to you gladly. One at a time if you wish, please. We can start at the beginning: Genesis states that plants lived without the Sun. Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. Then God creates the Sun and Moon on the next day: 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. \* **Note** : God is apparently confused, since the moon is not a light at all (and thus, not a ‘lesser light’), it reflects the Sun’s light. \* ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/488 "2013-07-16T19:27:22Z")
> [@Okieshowedem](#): > > When the Real Hebrew Messiah walked here He said we are FOOLS if we don’t believe ALL that he prophets have spoken. Luke 24:25. > > Now when we read the Scriptures and we understand what Yahshua Ben Nun said in Yahshua 10:12-14 then we believe the Scriptures over to lying preacher boy and the deceived world teacher we see that Galileo was a FOOL. > > Don’t be deceived only believe ALL that the prophets have spoken. > > Okie > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by RedFury View Post > Quite a bit longer if we are to follow Catholic Doctrine: > > On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.[49][50] In March 2008 the Vatican proposed to complete its rehabilitation of Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls.[51] In December of the same year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy.[52] Wot? So you are saying everyone should park their brains at the door when reading Scripture? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/489 "2013-07-16T19:59:34Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > We can start at the beginning: > > Genesis states that plants lived without the Sun. > > Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. > > 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. > > 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. > > Then God creates the Sun and Moon on the next day: > > 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. > > 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, > > 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. > \* > **Note** : God is apparently confused, since the moon is not a light at all (and thus, not a ‘lesser light’), it reflects the Sun’s light. \* Genesis states there was light before the sun. Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Maybe you want to explain how plants could have waited millions of years for animals to fertilize them and for the necessary carbon dioxide, according to evolution. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/490 "2013-07-16T20:00:47Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Since you like wikipedia, please read [this entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). > > On a side note, aren’t you a fan of magic? I mean, what did your deity use to create life if not magic? Notice the difference between ‘law’ and ‘hypotheses’. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/491 "2013-07-16T20:03:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The world-wide flood that covered the Earth. If you like historical accounts, see these (from an evolution-biased site). > **[Flood Stories from Around the World](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html)** > > While flood myths are common to practically every culture on the planet, they differ significantly in detail. This article describes hundreds of flood myths originating from cultures all over the globe. Google underwater civilizations also, that should be good enough to start. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/492 "2013-07-16T20:07:37Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If you would like to cite what you think is the biggest inaccuracy in the BIble, that will be explained to you gladly. One at a time if you wish, please. Um, no. You cited the book. I want to know on what basis you have vetted the book as an authority, and why we should also consider it an authority. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/493 "2013-07-16T20:08:04Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If you like historical accounts, see these (from an evolution-biased site). > [Flood Stories from Around the World](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) > > Google underwater civilizations also, that should be good enough to start. Yeah, floods happen all the time. Where is the evidence for a single world-wide flood that covered the Earth? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/494 "2013-07-16T20:09:02Z")
[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-\*\*myths\*\*.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood- **myths**.html) Anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/495 "2013-07-16T20:14:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Yeah, floods happen all the time. Where is the evidence for a single world-wide flood that covered the Earth? Also, if you want to use the few stories from your cite that actually involve a world-wide flood as evidence, then they must also be evidence of other gods and goddesses allowing other people besides Noah’s crew to survive. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/496 "2013-07-16T20:22:57Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Um, no. You cited the book. I want to know on what basis you have vetted the book as an authority, and why we should also consider it an authority. Fulfilled prophecy, which you will not find in any other text, with no inaccuracies. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/497 "2013-07-16T20:23:10Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Genesis states there was light before the sun. > > Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. So then the Sun is unnecessary for life on earth? Also, no comment on the Moon being a light? Or do you think it is one? > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Maybe you want to explain how plants could have waited millions of years for animals to fertilize them and for the necessary carbon dioxide, according to evolution. Why would I do that? That’s not what scientists say, that’s only what uneducated creationists _think_ scientists say. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Notice the difference between ‘law’ and ‘hypotheses’. My guess is that you think scientific knowledge is a hierarchy, with ‘law’ at the top, hypothesis at the bottom and ‘theory’ as something akin to an educated guess, right? > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Fulfilled prophecy, which you will not find in any other text, with no inaccuracies. You take this on faith, which is obvious. I’ve already shown a few inaccuracies. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/498 "2013-07-16T20:24:47Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If you like historical accounts, see these (from an evolution-biased site). > [Flood Stories from Around the World](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) > > Google underwater civilizations also, that should be good enough to start. Those aren’t historical accounts. There are thousands of myths about vampires, do you believe they are historical? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/499 "2013-07-16T20:27:24Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Maybe you want to explain how plants could have waited millions of years for animals to fertilize them and for the necessary carbon dioxide, according to evolution. Which we have already done. We spent post on post explaining it to you. Upon which you went quiet for several months and now you want to pretend we never had that conversation? ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/500 "2013-07-16T20:27:27Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Yeah, floods happen all the time. Where is the evidence for a single world-wide flood that covered the Earth? Just to start, how about sea-life fossils on the top of mountain ranges? Any fossils, for that matter, indicate rapid burial from floodlike conditions. The geologic column is not correct, but those layers do give evidence of some catastrophic event. Keep in mind, a giant meter impact would not leave billions of perfectly preserved fossils. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=26)