# 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:** 27
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/521 "2013-07-16T20:44:59Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Well that certainly was a flood. A flood of stupid, that is. You prefer [Scientific American](http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm)? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/522 "2013-07-16T20:45:58Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > -Please see the references Hovind gives, thanks. I said _credible_ cites. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/523 "2013-07-16T20:46:23Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Cite where they say he wasn’t an astronomer. Allow me to explain what should be bleedingly obvious. If you are making a positive claim, such as “Bruno was an astronomer”, the burden of proof is on you to justify it. Thus far all you’ve given us is a Wikipedia article. You’ve been told repeatedly that Wikipedia has no source for the claim that Bruno was an astronomer. Thus you’ve got absolutely nothing to support your position. I, on the other hand, have read and referenced a biography of the man by two scholars with strong strong credentials in the history of science, which clearly shows that you are wrong. Asking for a specific quote saying that Bruno wasn’t an astronomer is ridiculous. Obviously when someone is not an astronomer, a biography of them won’t specifically say “\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ was not an astronomer.” Instead the absence of any mention of astronomy in the biography will testify that the person was not an astronomer. For example, no biography of Elvis specifically says “Elvis was not an astronomer”. Instead we know that Elvis was not an astronomer because no biography of him says that he was. Likewise for you to demand to know what sources Dr. Gosselin and Dr. Lerner used is odd. There is no way to source the absence of a piece of information. Dr. Gosselin and Dr. Lerner have actually read what Bruno wrote, while you obviously haven’t, so they know what sort of work Bruno did. Again, everything I’ve written here is blindingly obvious. I’m only writing it because you’ve chosen to toss up desperate excuses rather than admitting that you made a mistake. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/524 "2013-07-16T20:46:52Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Which hasn’t been shown to be correct or incorrect… Exactly, Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass , that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken , but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. If you find any fulfilled prophecy in other texts, you will find inaccuracies also. ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/525 "2013-07-16T20:48:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I said _credible_ cites. Again, please see what he cites. ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/526 "2013-07-16T20:50:23Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Remember that page you quoted earlier? > [Here you go.](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html) > [And again.](http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep02.html#catastrophic) > [And again.](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD102.html) > Huh? Do you think the meteor impacted everywhere? How would a meteor hitting the earth prevent fossils? That is why petrified clams in the closed position were mentioned. If you can cite fossils near a meteorite impact site, tha would be great, thanks. ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/527 "2013-07-16T20:54:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve read a fascinating book containing bits of original writings by scientists from Copernicus to 1800. What is telling is that the earlier scientists often included language just like the above. As science progressed, it disappeared. as god became less and less necessary. > Newton is great because of what he discovered, not because of who he was (which was a mess.) do you love his alchemy also? It was just an example of an extremely influential scientist who was a creationist (also a Christian). Here are some more: Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also 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 > **[Bios](https://answersingenesis.org/bios/)** > > Get to know Answers in Genesis speakers from our offices around the world. ---
**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, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/528 "2013-07-16T20:57:03Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > You prefer [Scientific American](http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm)? That’s vastly better, yes. _Now_, you can talk about whether the Black Sea-deluge might be the basis of what evolved to be the story of Noah’s Ark. Without the stupid hyperbole and insinuations that now there is PROOF that Noah’s ARk is TRUE!!!. ---
**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, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/529 "2013-07-16T20:57:34Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass , that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken , but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. > > If you find any fulfilled prophecy in other texts, you will find inaccuracies also. Just like we can find inaccuracies in the text you’re relying on. This is a cop out. If something doesn’t happen you just ‘oh god didnt say it’. But yet it’s still in the bible. You still haven’t shown how my first example is wrong. ---
**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, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/530 "2013-07-16T20:58:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Let me ask you something: When you participate in these threads and people point out the facts to you, with proper cites to boot, what do you do with all this new information-toss it in the round file because it doesn’t fit your belief system? Can you give us just one good reason why we should bother to explain how science works and what science shows us if the next time this pops up _you’re just going to pretend the previous conversations never took place at all and start all over again with already disproved cites_? Why is it so hard to just post the ‘proper cite’? ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/531 "2013-07-16T21:00:33Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > That is why petrified clams in the closed position were mentioned. Actually, the link explains this. Maybe you should read it. > [@](#): > > If you can cite fossils near a meteorite impact site, tha would be great, thanks. A casual search can uncover many such fossils. [Fossils near the Chicxulub crater.](http://www.backyardnature.net/yucatan/geology~.htm) ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/532 "2013-07-16T21:00:58Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Just like we can find inaccuracies in the text you’re relying on. This is a cop out. If something doesn’t happen you just ‘oh god didnt say it’. But yet it’s still in the bible. > > You still haven’t shown how my first example is wrong. If you want, I can post a lot of other scripture regarding endtimes. Thats the point of prophecy, it hasnt happened yet. ---
**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, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/533 "2013-07-16T21:02:19Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Why is it so hard to just post the ‘proper cite’? 1. I just saw what you claimed to be a “proper cite”, claiming that all those people were creationists, and my standards are _much_ higher than yours. 2. You’ve already been shown cites in previous threads-doing it again would just be a big waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/534 "2013-07-16T21:02:30Z")
> [@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]’ We’ve been through this. That applies in our current world, not the extreme conditions and lack of life in the early world. We are already constructing viruses out of piece parts. I know viruses aren’t quite living, but it is close. Pasteur knew nothing of DNA, of course. What law prevents the growth of life from lifeless self-replicating molecules in the extreme conditions of the early earth? Spontaneous generation to Pasteur had a very specific meaning, and falsifying that has nothing to do with early life. ---
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/535 "2013-07-16T21:04:34Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Actually, the link explains this. Maybe you should read it. > A casual search can uncover many such fossils. > > [Fossils near the Chicxulub crater.](http://www.backyardnature.net/yucatan/geology~.htm) Thanks for the cite, I truly appreciate that. Here is just one point I want to make: ‘THE LIMESTONE IS YOUNG, GEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING Much of the outcropping limestone in the northern Yucatan is part of the Carrillo Puerto Formation of Miocene-Pliocene age. The Miocene and Pliocene are often considered as having occurred from 23.8 to 1.8 million years ago. Along much of the Yucatan coastline you find Quaternary deposits 1.8 million years old and younger.’ So you see this is not thought of as the global catastrophic event that supposedly wiped out all the dinosaurs. ---
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/536 "2013-07-16T21:06:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We’ve been through this. That applies in our current world, not the extreme conditions and lack of life in the early world. We are already constructing viruses out of piece parts. I know viruses aren’t quite living, but it is close. Pasteur knew nothing of DNA, of course. > > What law prevents the growth of life from lifeless self-replicating molecules in the extreme conditions of the early earth? Spontaneous generation to Pasteur had a very specific meaning, and falsifying that has nothing to do with early life. These ‘piece parts’ must already be some form of nucleic acid. The whole point of abiogenesis is the nucleic acid forming in the first place. If you could cite something please I would appreciate it, thanks. ---
**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, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/537 "2013-07-16T21:08:00Z")
And here is your unfulfilled prophesy: “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28) “Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34) “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30) “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. Then He told them a parable: Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place.“ (Luke 21:27-32) Didn’t happen, did it? They waited…and they died. ---
**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, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/538 "2013-07-16T21:08:09Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Just like Genesis 8 states. No no no, reef. You view states that the waters rose and fell, leaving behind the clams. That is a different from the clams dying and\* then\* having the land rise over a loooooong period of time , until they are high above sea level. ---
**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, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/539 "2013-07-16T21:09:42Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Thanks for the cite, I truly appreciate that. Here is just one point I want to make: > > ‘THE LIMESTONE IS YOUNG, GEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING > Much of the outcropping limestone in the northern Yucatan is part of the Carrillo Puerto Formation of Miocene-Pliocene age. The Miocene and Pliocene are often considered as having occurred from 23.8 to 1.8 million years ago. Along much of the Yucatan coastline you find Quaternary deposits 1.8 million years old and younger.’ Well at least I’m glad you don’t believe the earth is only some 10.000 years old. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/540 "2013-07-16T21:09:47Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I believe there are thousands of accounts of people drinking the blood of other people. An excellent example of this kind of thinking. When asked about stories on vampires usually defined as immortal undead creatures who need blood to live, you redefine it as anyone drinking blood from someone else, and then claim that they exist. I can do the same thing to prove a god exists. Augustus was thought to be a god. Augustus existed. Thus, god exists. Not quite the god you had in mind, but gee, who cares? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=28)