# 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:** 31
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/601 "2013-07-17T14:38:28Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > MT 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: > > 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. > > 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. > > Not seeing the reference to a single generation, please cite that. This is not what I quoted, you left the relevant part out. Let’s try this again: [Matthew 24:30-35]([Matthew - The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah - Bible Gateway](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew) 24:30-35&version=NASB) 30 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. 31 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. 32 “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; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, **this generation will not pass away until all these things take place**. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. This is called being wrong. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/602 "2013-07-17T14:48:47Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Sorry, but i could tread water for a day if my life depended on it, and there are better swimmers than me. You are forgetting flying creatures too. More than a day? Seriously? So you’d be dead on day 2. If the flood lasted a year, that’s pretty close to about a day. Fliers might last a bit longer, but flying generally takes up a lot of energy, and they can forget about things like thermals. Also remember, water is supposed to be falling from the sky. Fliers wouldn’t last very long either. For the fossil record to correspond to your idea, I’m not even going to call it a hypothesis cuz it’s been long disproven, creatures would have to be sorted in a very specific way, not just by weight. There would have to be huge layers of the right kind of sediment deposited over them right away, or somehow just after the bones were picked clean. There would have to be specific plants sorted along with the animals, not just from their environment, but from their time period. And even if this were true, we would only find human remains in places that were settled at the time of the flood, which we very obviously do not. I’m just bringing up points off the top of my head, there are many many more reasons why you and all other creationists are wrong about this. Not including the childish absurdity of the story of Noah’s ark. Go and find out for yourself. If you really are looking for the truth that is. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/603 "2013-07-17T15:07:14Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > More than a day? Seriously? So you’d be dead on day 2. If the flood lasted a year, that’s pretty close to about a day. Fliers might last a bit longer, but flying generally takes up a lot of energy, and they can forget about things like thermals. Also remember, water is supposed to be falling from the sky. Fliers wouldn’t last very long either. I completely missed that bit of nonsense. I doubt that anyone could tread water for a day in tranquil conditions (it’s possible I suppose), but flood conditions? Not a chance. Reef Shark is going to have put something forth to support that load. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/604 "2013-07-17T18:06:42Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > How so? Because nothing I have posted has indicated any claim that people were not burned at the direction of the church. Asking whether I claim otherwise when I have not made any claim on the topic is simply a way to distract from the points I did make–your errors of fact and history. You cherry-picked a few cases in which a particular witch hysteria may have have church leadership. That is cherry-picking. For a more accurate historical record, one that demonstrates that it was actually a lack of church control that led to most witch trials, one should read [Recent Developments in the Study of the Great European Witch Hunt](http://www.tangledmoon.org/witchhunt.htm). An even more thorough examination debunking the “_RCC burns millions of witches_” theme, was written by the neo-Pagan Arlea Æðelwyrd Hunt-Anschütz, The Burning Times Myth published in _Connections Journal_ in the Spring, 1999 edition. Unfortunately, it is no longer on-line. Neither of these articles makes a claim that the RCC played no role in the Renaissance witch hysteria, but they both make a pretty clear case, based on evidence, that the church played only a small role–and was more often opposed to the witch trials than supportive of them. Go pick some more cherries. > [@Kable](#): > > No I said the Church attacked Galileo for his scientific endeavors. I think I also mentioned that it was hard to put a pro-science spine on the Burning of Bruno. What were you saying about straw men? The whole notion of a “pro-science spin” is nothing more than an attempt to condemn the church as anti-science when science played no role in Bruno’s condemnation. It is like blaming payroll robberies on Italian immigrants or Anarchists because Sacco and Vanzetti happened to be Italian immigrants and Anarchists. > [@Kable](#): > > Do you think it was wrong to burn Bruno? Of course. > [@Kable](#): > > Bruno’s cosmology was listed as one of the reasons they killed him. So sorry. You seem really attached to this. His cosmology was not science. More cherry picking–one non-science line out of a list of accusations–that is not even making your point. ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/605 "2013-07-17T18:15:41Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > More than a day? Seriously? So you’d be dead on day 2. If the flood lasted a year, that’s pretty close to about a day. Fliers might last a bit longer, but flying generally takes up a lot of energy, and they can forget about things like thermals. Also remember, water is supposed to be falling from the sky. Fliers wouldn’t last very long either. > > For the fossil record to correspond to your idea, I’m not even going to call it a hypothesis cuz it’s been long disproven, creatures would have to be sorted in a very specific way, not just by weight. There would have to be huge layers of the right kind of sediment deposited over them right away, or somehow just after the bones were picked clean. There would have to be specific plants sorted along with the animals, not just from their environment, but from their time period. And even if this were true, we would only find human remains in places that were settled at the time of the flood, which we very obviously do not. > > I’m just bringing up points off the top of my head, there are many many more reasons why you and all other creationists are wrong about this. Not including the childish absurdity of the story of Noah’s ark. Go and find out for yourself. If you really are looking for the truth that is. This is why I stated there was no geologic column. There is no ‘record, different organisms are located in all different layers of strata. Hydrological sorting can account for most, but of course there will be exceptions based on the organisms’ intelligence, mobility, etc. Maybe you can cite a specific place showing this ‘record’. You do realize marine life would last more than a day, correct? ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/606 "2013-07-17T18:29:24Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > This is not what I quoted, you left the relevant part out. Let’s try this again: > [Matthew 24:30-35]([Matthew - The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah - Bible Gateway](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew) 24:30-35&version=NASB) > > 30 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. > 31 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. > 32 “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; > 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. > 34 Truly I say to you, **this generation will not pass away until all these things take place**. > 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. > > This is called being wrong. Please let me quote Matthew Henry and John Wesley: Matthew Henry’s Matthew Chapter 24 Bible commentary… Christ foretells the destruction of the temple. (1-3) The troubles before the destruction of Jerusalem. (4-28) Christ foretells other signs and miseries, to the end of the world. (29-41) Exhortations to watchfulness. (42-51)1-3 Christ foretells the utter ruin and destruction coming upon the temple. A believing foresight of the defacing of all worldly glory, will help to keep us from admiring it, and overvaluing it. The most beautiful body soon will be food for worms, and the most magnificent building a ruinous heap. See ye not all these things? It will do us good so to see them as to see through them, and see to the end of them. Our Lord having gone with his disciples to the Mount of Olives, he set before them the order of the times concerning the Jews, till the destruction of Jerusalem; and as to men in general till the end of the world. 4-28 The disciples had asked concerning the times, When these things should be? Christ gave them no answer to that; but they had also asked, What shall be the sign? This question he answers fully. The prophecy first respects events near at hand, the destruction of Jerusalem, the end of the Jewish church and state, the calling of the Gentiles, and the setting up of Christ’s kingdom in the world; but it also looks to the general judgment; and toward the close, points more particularly to the latter. What Christ here said to his disciples, tended more to promote caution than to satisfy their curiosity; more to prepare them for the events that should happen, than to give a distinct idea of the events. This is that good understanding of the times which all should covet, thence to infer what Israel ought to do. Our Saviour cautions his disciples to stand on their guard against false teachers. And he foretells wars and great commotions among nations. From the time that the Jews rejected Christ, and he left their house desolate, the sword never departed from them. See what comes of refusing the gospel. Those who will not hear the messengers of peace, shall be made to hear the messengers of war. But where the heart is fixed, trusting in God, it is kept in peace, and is not afraid. It is against the mind of Christ, that his people should have troubled hearts, even in troublous times. When we looked forward to the eternity of misery that is before the obstinate refusers of Christ and his gospel, we may truly say, The greatest earthly judgments are but the beginning of sorrows. It is comforting that some shall endure even to the end. Our Lord foretells the preaching of the gospel in all the world. The end of the world shall not be till the gospel has done its work. Christ foretells the ruin coming upon the people of the Jews; and what he said here, would be of use to his disciples, for their conduct and for their comfort. If God opens a door of escape, we ought to make our escape, otherwise we do not trust God, but tempt him. It becomes Christ’s disciples, in times of public trouble, to be much in prayer: that is never out of season, but in a special manner seasonable when we are distressed on every side. Though we must take what God sends, yet we may pray against sufferings; and it is very trying to a good man, to be taken by any work of necessity from the solemn service and worship of God on the sabbath day. But here is one word of comfort, that for the elect’s sake these days shall be made shorter than their enemies designed, who would have cut all off, if God, who used these foes to serve his own purpose, had not set bounds to their wrath. Christ foretells the rapid spreading of the gospel in the world. It is plainly seen as the lightning. Christ preached his gospel openly. The Romans were like an eagle, and the ensign of their armies was an eagle. When a people, by their sin, make themselves as loathsome carcasses, nothing can be expected but that God should send enemies to destroy them. It is very applicable to the day of judgment, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in that day, #2Th 2:1|. Let us give diligence to make our calling and election sure; then may we know that no enemy or deceiver shall ever prevail against us. View Wesley’s Notes for Matthew 24:34 24:34 ‘This generation of men now living shall not pass till all these things be done - The expression implies, that great part of that generation would be passed away, but not the whole. Just so it was. For the city and temple were destroyed thirty - nine or forty years after.’ ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/607 "2013-07-17T18:39:17Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > That’s right I justified it with the wiki article. > > No you, and only you, just said that once. Okay, so we’re in agreement that the only “justification” for your unshakable belief that Bruno was an astronomer is a single sentence posted anonymously on the web with no citation. Most people around here don’t consider that to be a good basis for a belief, so it’s not surprisingly that everyone who’s chimed on the topic has been in agreement with me, trying to correct your ignorance about Bruno. > [@](#): > > Please quote where they clearly show that I am wrong. I already addressed this in my previous post. It does not surprise me at all that you’ve completely failed to acknowledge or respond to the content of what I said. Let me just repost what I wrote earlier, though I feel pretty sure you’ll refuse to acknowledge it once again. 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:** ![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 17, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/608 "2013-07-17T18:59:26Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14\_1/j14\_1\_110-116.pdf](http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_1/j14_1_110-116.pdf) > > This is a little off topic, but maybe you can cite some intermediate or previous trilobites with simple eyes. Or you can admit that the trilobite eye was extremely complex to begin with. To respond twice to this, after my response I thought of something interesting about this “paper”. In the beginning he notes that the fossil record is a bit confounding for creationists, and says that some have suggested that multiple floods could cause multiple fossil layers. His response is not to critique their ideas based on the data, but rather to say that they must be wrong because they don’t follow what the Bible says. In other words, ignore the facts if they don’t agree with the Bible. Wonder why scientists consider creationists total meatballs, and why this stuff doesn’t get published in real journals? I didn’t notice any predictions in what I read, in the sense of what we could expect to find in the fossil record if his ideas were true. He just twists the actual evidence he cares to acknowledge to meet his predefined conclusions. That is exactly like Sherlockians making up explanations for contradictions in the Holmes stories. They do it for fun, creationists are serious. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/609 "2013-07-17T19:15:32Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > His cosmology was not science. More cherry picking–one non-science line out of a list of accusations–that is not even making your point. I need to correct this statement. His cosmology did, indeed, speak of multiple inhabited worlds that differed from our own. However, among the denial of the divinity of Jesus, the denial of the nature of the Holy Spirit, and several other significant breaks with Christian tradition, this was hardly the point that triggered his arrest or his trial. It is a popular theme among some anti-religionist groups–sort of the counterweights to Jack Chick and _WorldNetDaily_ from the other side of the tracks–that Bruno was killed for his scientific statements, but there is absolutely no evidence for this claim. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/610 "2013-07-17T19:22:24Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Please let me quote Matthew Henry and John Wesley: > {a whole lot of subjective interpretation with nothing to back it up} It’s _commentary_, it’s an editorial opinion, not official dogma. Lots of people write commentaries, and you’ll get a different interpretation with every one of them. You’re relying on one person’s opinion to try to prove something as factual. Let’s say Jesus is specifically talking about the temple, look at what he says next: 29 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. 30 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. 31 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. Has this happened? No. Then was the prophecy fulfilled? No. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/611 "2013-07-17T19:30:48Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > This is why I stated there was no geologic column. There is no ‘record, different organisms are located in all different layers of strata. Hydrological sorting can account for most, but of course there will be exceptions based on the organisms’ intelligence, mobility, etc. Maybe you can cite a specific place showing this ‘record’. You are 100% wrong about there being no geologic column. [Once again, Talk Origins](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD103.html) And if you’re actually interested in learning, here’s [even more information.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#column) Pay particular attention to the information in the section titled “The Geologic Column in North Dakota”. Hydrological sorting was [debunked](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html) long ago. Simply, a catastrophic flood would not allow for sorting of organisms, much less sorting of relevant sedimentary layers. > [@](#): > > You do realize marine life would last more than a day, correct? So we should expect to find very little if any marine life in the fossil record. And yet, the fossil record is crammed with them. ---
**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 17, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/612 "2013-07-17T20:31:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why don’t you [read this,](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html) and if you have any questions that aren’t covered there we can discuss them. Let me provide a specific cite for you (instead of just [creation.com](http://creation.com)) [http://creation.com/trilobite-technology](http://creation.com/trilobite-technology) If you cite talkorigins, I will cite [creation.com](http://creation.com). Let me know if something in that article is inaccurate, 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 17, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/613 "2013-07-17T20:38:32Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If you cite talkorigins, I will cite [creation.com](http://creation.com). You _will_ be citing [creation.com](http://creation.com)? Are you claiming that every “fact” and question you posted so far just _coincidentally_ happens to also appear on [creation.com](http://creation.com)? ---
**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 17, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/614 "2013-07-17T22:12:51Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Let me provide a specific cite for you (instead of just [creation.com](http://creation.com)) > [http://creation.com/trilobite-technology](http://creation.com/trilobite-technology) > > If you cite talkorigins, I will cite [creation.com](http://creation.com). Let me know if something in that article is inaccurate, thanks. Talkorigins is a convenient place to start. They cite the real papers. Scott ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/615 "2013-07-17T23:16:59Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If you cite talkorigins, I will cite [creation.com](http://creation.com). Let me know if something in that article is inaccurate, thanks. Why would you even bother trusting them when they admit up front that they are bias and that truth is secondary? [From here](http://creation.com/about-us): > [@](#): > > The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science. > > **The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.** We’ve already seen how untrustworthy scripture is on the first page of the Bible - yet these people take it as their final, inerrant guide. If you are citing them either: 1. You don’t know this. 2. You don’t care objectively viewing the facts. The **statement of faith** goes further: > [@](#): > > The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. We’ve already shown that Genesis cannot be factual or represent actual events - on the very first page. Yet these people use scripture as the final authority - not objective analysis, empirical evidence, or reason. Why would you trust them on anything much less appeal to other people to trust them? ---
**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 18, 2013, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/616 "2013-07-18T02:51:40Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > The moon doesn’t have any light to give. So that’s strike one against the Matthew prophecy. (Also, the stars will fall from heaven? Presumably onto earth - really?) > > Strike two is that the early Christians expected the end times to happen in their own time. > > Strike three is that it didn’t happen and it’s been over 2000 years. > > Show me where a hominid fossil lays along side a fossil of a cambrian creature (ex. Trilobites). You do that, then you have a case. > > We both know you can’t do that though. In fact, you can’t show any hominid fossils where they are not expected (via evolutionary theory) to be. Another blow against creationism and a global flood. In short, the global flood ‘theory’ has been falsified. > > Why can’t plants live in space if they can live without the Sun? Why do they need photosynthesis at all? If they can live without the Sun they can live without food, heat, and a whole host of other things. > > In short, your position is ridiculous. > > Also, I will take your silence on the moon and your prior post as a concession that you do think that the moon generates it’s own light - as the Bible teaches - as opposed to reflecting light from the Sun, as science has shown. I’m curious, since this is your implied position, does this mean you deny the moon landings as well, since the astronauts would have melted when they landed on the lesser light that is the moon? > > Your position is becoming more and more bizarre and laughable. Here is the wiki on moonlight, again: > **[Moonlight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight)** > > Moonlight consists of mostly sunlight (with little earthlight) reflected from the parts of the Moon's surface where the Sun's light strikes. > The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras was aware that "the sun provides the moon with its brightness". > The intensity of moonlight varies greatly depending on the lunar phase, but even the full moon typically provides only about 0.05–0.1 lux illumination. When a full Moon around perigee (a "supermoon") is viewed around upper culmination from the tropics, ... ‘Moonlight is the light that reaches Earth from the Moon, consisting mostly of sunlight, with some starlight and earthlight reflected from those portions of its surface which the Sun’s light strikes.[1]’ If you really want to do your due diligence, you would check the original Hebrew word used there for ‘light’. There are different words used for simply ‘light’ and the source of the light. Your second point is irrelevant unless you want to cite specific verses. Another poster brought up Matthew 24:34, which was quite interesting actually. Let me recap that here: MT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Some critics of the Bible have a problem with the fact that Jesus said that ‘generation’ would not pass until all those things were fulfilled. Let me point to the first verse of that same book: MT 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. The word ‘generation’ seems to have a slightly different meaning than how we would use it commonly today. Also see these verses: Psalms 14:5, Psalms 22:30, Psalms 24:6, Psalms 73:15, 1 Peter 2:9 etc. Those all refer to a spiritual generation, God’s children. I apologize to that other poster here for hastily copy/pasting Henry and Wesley before. The complex part about Matthew 24 (and Mark 13, Luke 21) is that Jesus is simultaneously prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (70 AD), in addition to a later destruction of Jerusalem and ‘abomination of desolation’ in the endtimes. Regarding Trilobites again, please see this: > **[Cambrian Fossils Found in 'Wrong' Place](https://www.icr.org/article/cambrian-fossils-found-wrong-place/)** > > Many extinct and strange creatures were only known from Cambrian rocks--until now. Newly discovered fossils in higher, more "recent" rock layers in Morocco show "remarkable preservation" and hold a host of what were for decades considered exclusively... I briefly mentioned before that the fossils we see now are mainly sorted by mass and density, with exceptions due to an animal’s intelligence, mobility, and also location (intelligent land animal vs. ocean bottom dweller, for example). This is why we dont find trilobites laying with hominids. You asked again ‘Why can’t plants live in space if they can live without the Sun?’ I already cited where the plants were without the sun in Genesis 1 for a single day. However, there was light from verse 3. That is what sustained the plants for a day. Regardless, plants can survive for 24 hours without any light, so your question is irrelevant. Speaking of photosynthesis, that brings us back to where all the CO2 came from for all those plants. Indeed, ignoring animals (for fertilization also) in regards to plants is laughable, as evolution claims. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/617 "2013-07-18T02:56:11Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I briefly mentioned before that the fossils we see now are mainly sorted by mass and density, with exceptions due to an animal’s intelligence, mobility, and also location (intelligent land animal vs. ocean bottom dweller, for example). It was wrong when you mentioned it before, and it’s still wrong. You do understand that when you say something that’s wrong it doesn’t count as a rebuttal of someone else’s argument, right? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/618 "2013-07-18T03:58:18Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Regarding Trilobites again, please see this: > [Cambrian Fossils Found in 'Wrong' Place | The Institute for Creation Research](http://www.icr.org/article/cambrian-fossils-found-wrong-place/) It always amuses me to see how often those who are “defending” God in the debates over evolution and creation are so often willing to “bear false witness” to make their case. For example, the following paragraph is simply a lie: > [@](#): > > This find forces evolutionists to add a new belief in order to support their overall concept of past life. Before, evolutionists believed that some creatures evolved into others–an easy story to assert but one that lacked the expected transitional forms in the fossil record.3 Now, they must also believe that some creatures evolved into others, and at the same time spawned more of themselves in “parallel.” They must insist that the “stem” soft-bodied animals “gave rise” to newer life forms found in higher sediments, as well as to populations that continued to produce more forms just like themselves. No part of Evolutionary Theory holds that all members of every genus has to proceed to “higher” forms at some uniform rate. Cartilage fishes, (such as sharks), never died out when bony fishes appeared. A number of turtles and crocodilians have continued in much their original forms while their cousins gave rise to other reptiles. The quoted paragraph is nothing more than the stupid question, “_if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?_” dressed up in less stupid sounding, (but still false), language. As to claims that the new discoveries, (actually dating back several years), present some serious change to Evolutionary Theory, I note that the people who actually documented the find [actually considered it unremarkable in context](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09038.html), although welcoming it as new information confirming existent hypotheses. (Meaning ICR has lied not only about Evolutionary Theory, in general, but about this specific discovery, in particular.) As long as your rely on liars for your sources, you will fail to persuade anyone of your beliefs. ---
**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 18, 2013, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/619 "2013-07-18T06:43:04Z")
To follow up, another lie is > [@](#): > > Before, evolutionists believed that some creatures evolved into others–an easy story to assert but one that lacked the expected transitional forms in the fossil record. Actually of course, we have tons of transitional fossils. We even have transitional living creatures. Go to visit the elephant seals at Ano Nuevo in California. They mate and give birth on land, but can only eat in the water If they don’t go extinct and evolve to do more on land or more in the water we’d see the current seals as transitional - but of course we have no way of knowing which way they will go, if any. BTW, ICR science writer is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/620 "2013-07-18T07:40:13Z")
> **[What Percentage of Prisoners are Atheists? It’s a Lot Smaller Than We Ever...](https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/)** > > What percentage of prisoners are atheists? > > This is an important question with serious implications. If the number is high, it lends support to the idea that atheists are immoral (\*\*\*Edit\*\*\*: I should've made clear that not all prisoners are in jail... A related thing - apparently less than 1% of prisoners who answered a survey are atheists - perhaps as little as 0.2% [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=32)