# 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:** 32
**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 18, 2013, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/621 "2013-07-18T08:14:06Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The definition of scientific method you mention is pretty much exactly what I wrote about the experiment. > My familiarity with this stuff is a bit more than a college class - more like dozens of papers, hundreds of reviews, and a bit of journal editing. > Now how science really works is a lot more complicated than you learn for a science 101 class or a dictionary definition, but the point remains that Pasteur;s hypothesis had nothing to do with the early earth. Plus, an experiment which does not offer the possibility of falsifying the hypothesis is totally useless. If you don’t see that, I can explain it. > As for magic, God saying let there be light and light poofing into existence sounds like magic to me. Your special pleading is that it’s different when goddidit - it ain’t. You seem to like the cutesy words, don’t you? “Poofing” and “Goddidit.” That’s nice for a three-year-old, but for someone your apparent age it betokens a snide attitude which deserves a rap in the mouth. Or at least disassociation. Very well. You have made your bed, Smart-aleck, and you can damn well lie in it! :mad: ---
**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, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/622 "2013-07-18T10:41:46Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > You seem to like the cutesy words, don’t you? “Poofing” and “Goddidit.” That’s nice for a three-year-old, but for someone your apparent age it betokens a snide attitude which deserves a rap in the mouth. Or at least disassociation. Very well. You have made your bed, Smart-aleck, and you can damn well lie in it! :mad: If this is your declaration that you are leaving the thread, I will let this lie. If you intend to continue to hurl personal insults at other posters, you will garner a Warning. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/623 "2013-07-18T12:46:42Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Here is the wiki on moonlight, again: > [Moonlight - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight) > ‘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. Actually I have checked, it’s really easy with online tools, [see here](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=1&t=KJV#conc/16): The word for light is **the same** in the passage: ma’owr You can even look up the ‘[greater](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1419&t=KJV)’ or ‘[lesser](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6996&t=KJV)’ that precedes light. So your attempted reconciliation of reality with the Bible fails. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > 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. Again, it’s easy to check with online tools: [Generation](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1074&t=KJV): The words used are different, in Psalms it’s [dowr](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1755&t=KJV), in Matthew it’s [genea](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1074&t=KJV), which isn’t surprising since they were from different languages. That being the case, you are comparing two similar, but different, words. Even your reference to Peter is wrong, since it’s not genea, it’s [genos](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1085&t=KJV), which has a similar, but different meaning. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > 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. I’m sorry, but you can’t make stuff up and then insert it anachronistically into the Bible because you can’t accept what it says literally. If you read the chapter in context you will see that your interpretation makes no sense. He’s talking to a group of people. Incidentally, I’ll also point out that this portion of the Bible gets the facts about the moon (and astronomy) wrong as well: \*Mat 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: \* > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Regarding Trilobites again, please see this: You linked to ICR, which values sticking to the Bible, regardless of the evidence. It also values misleading it’s readers as Tomndebb pointed out. So I cannot trust that source and further more, if you care about the truth, neither should you. > [@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). This is why we dont find trilobites laying with hominids. First, it’s been pointed out that this is wrong. Second, the fossils we see are not sorted in such a manner and your explanation of why we don’t see hominids with trilobites is absurd and has no evidence. Trilobites were marine creatures, they would have been able to keep up with a hominid, although most marine creatures would die and there would be no fresh water creatures alive after the flood (yet, oddly, we find them). > [@reef\_shark](#): > > 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. I’m not sure what your point about the plants being without the Sun for a single day has to do with anything. Are you telling me that they could produce seeds and such without heat, light, nutrients, etc? Are these magic plants? It’s not just surviving without any light - it’s without any heat, light, moisture, etc, etc. The question is very relevant because it makes your proposition - that we should take the Bible literally - absolutely embarrassing for you. You keep trying to minimize it, as though the only effect the Sun has on the planet is light, that’s not the case at all. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > 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. Evolution doesn’t claim any of this. Until you put forth something that is actually what scientists (not creationists) teach, I see no reason to answer your strawmen. Notice I quote where your book (Bible) is absurd - you, on the other hand, simply make up stuff and then claim that evolution claims this. That’s dishonest. > [@dougie\_monty](#): > > You seem to like the cutesy words, don’t you? “Poofing” and “Goddidit.” That’s nice for a three-year-old, but for someone your apparent age it betokens a snide attitude which deserves a rap in the mouth. Or at least disassociation. Very well. You have made your bed, Smart-aleck, and you can damn well lie in it! :mad: By all means correct him and tell us all how God created light, the universe, life, etc without resorting to something is akin to magic. I mean, what do you want us to call it? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/624 "2013-07-18T12:50:58Z")
Wow. That seems to be an awful lot of work to explain why some Bible verses are still “literally” true even when a plain reading shows something different. Can you imagine where our civilization would be today if that intellectual effort had been applied to something practical? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/625 "2013-07-18T14:22:54Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. Not really. When I do an internet search on Bruno I find lots of references calling him an astronomer (among other things). Wiki was just the only one I cited. I also wouldn’t say my beliefs regarding Bruno’s life are “unshakable”, rather I put more credence in wiki than I do you. > [@](#): > > 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. I asked you for content to prove your claim. If you had it you would have given it. You have a great bluff though. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/626 "2013-07-18T14:38:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Because nothing I have posted has indicated any claim that people were not burned at the direction of the church. How many do you estimate they burned. > [@](#): > > 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. Please cite me making an error 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. > [@](#): > > 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. Sorry I don’t see that demonstrated in your article. > [@](#): > > 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. You claimed science had nothing to do with it. All I had to do was cherry pick the one line showing you were wrong. Cherry picking was appropriate in that case. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/627 "2013-07-18T14:39:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I need to correct this statement. His cosmology did, indeed, speak of multiple inhabited worlds that differed from our own. Thanks so much for admitting that. ---
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/628 "2013-07-18T16:14:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > To follow up, another lie is > > 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. What did those seals supposedly evolve from? ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/629 "2013-07-18T16:17:38Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > What did those seals supposedly evolve from? I’d have to look it up, but you [take a class on it.](http://ports.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23103). Why do you think that question would pose a problem to anyone? ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/630 "2013-07-18T16:22:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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? Were you trying to rebut my statement there? ---
**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, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/631 "2013-07-18T16:23:07Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > You seem to like the cutesy words, don’t you? “Poofing” and “Goddidit.” That’s nice for a three-year-old, but for someone your apparent age it betokens a snide attitude which deserves a rap in the mouth. Or at least disassociation. Very well. You have made your bed, Smart-aleck, and you can damn well lie in it! :mad: Tell me about falsification again. ---
**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, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/632 "2013-07-18T16:23:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’d have to look it up, but you [take a class on it.](http://ports.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23103). Why do you think that question would pose a problem to anyone? Here: > **[Natural selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection)** > > Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which is intentional, whereas natural selection is not. > Variation of traits, both genotypic and phenotypic, exists within all populations of organisms. However, som... The seals evolved from…seals. ---
**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, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/633 "2013-07-18T16:27:58Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Were you trying to rebut my statement there? The statement was already rebutted. Fossils are not sorted by mass and density. This was explained to you about a page ago, and you just asserted it again as if it were a fact. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > The fossils would be sorted based on their density and mass (hydrological sorting). Since the flood lasted over a year, there was plenty of time and tide changes for several layers. > [@Meatros](#): > > A bigger problem is why you find no hominid fossils in the Cambrian strata. If there was a global flood, why aren’t all the fossils essentially jumbled up together? > > Also since you didn’t respond to my last post, I’m assuming that this is a concession that the Bible isn’t inerrant and my criticisms have merit. I can now move onto the next batch of problems? > > Or are you adamant that the moon generates its own light and plants can live in, essentially, the vacuum of space? > [@hotflungwok](#): > > No, they wouldn’t They would have all died in a day or so, and all sunk to bottom at nearly the same time. There would be one big layer of dead things, and then all the silt and rocks. While there might be some stuff mixed in, the majority of it would be dead animals. We would only see multiple layers if these things died in at multiple times over a long period of time. Which is exactly what we see. > [@Voyager](#): > > So, lighter animals should be on top. How do you explain trilobites being below dinosaurs then? In fact the ordering corresponds to evolutionary history, not density. > > Very few things fossilize, and animals buried by flash floods are going to be more likely to, so we have plenty of cases of fossil fields from local flash flooding. It is just not global. > [@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). This is why we dont find trilobites laying with hominids. This attempts to excuse the trilobyte/hominid question (although it doesn’t) but fails to address everything else. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/634 "2013-07-18T16:31:12Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Here: > [Natural selection - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) > > The seals evolved from…seals. That evolved from …seals, that evolved from …seals, that evolved from …seals, that evolved from …seals, that evolved from …not quite seals, that evolved from …not quite seals, that evolved from …not quite seals, that evolved from …like seals, that evolved from …like seals, that evolved from …sealy like, that evolved from …sealy like, that evolved from …bit like a seal, that evolved from …bit like a seal, more like a little bear, , that evolved from …bit like a seal, more like a little bear, , that evolved from ..something like a little bear, that evolved from ..something like a little bear… ---
**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, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/635 "2013-07-18T16:31:48Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The statement was already rebutted. Fossils are not sorted by mass and density. This was explained to you about a page ago, and you just asserted it again as if it were a fact. > > This attempts to excuse the trilobyte/hominid question (although it doesn’t) but fails to address everything else. I gave exceptions based on intelligence, mobility, and location. Nobody else here can cite the complete fossil ‘record’ or geologic column anyways, so your point is irrelevant. ---
**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, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/636 "2013-07-18T16:36:23Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Actually I have checked, it’s really easy with online tools, [see here](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=1&t=KJV#conc/16): > > The word for light is **the same** in the passage: ma’owr > You can even look up the ‘[greater](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1419&t=KJV)’ or ‘[lesser](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6996&t=KJV)’ that precedes light. > > So your attempted reconciliation of reality with the Bible fails. > > Again, it’s easy to check with online tools: [Generation](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1074&t=KJV): > > The words used are different, in Psalms it’s [dowr](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1755&t=KJV), in Matthew it’s [genea](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1074&t=KJV), which isn’t surprising since they were from different languages. That being the case, you are comparing two similar, but different, words. Even your reference to Peter is wrong, since it’s not genea, it’s [genos](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1085&t=KJV), which has a similar, but different meaning. > > I’m sorry, but you can’t make stuff up and then insert it anachronistically into the Bible because you can’t accept what it says literally. If you read the chapter in context you will see that your interpretation makes no sense. He’s talking to a group of people. > > Incidentally, I’ll also point out that this portion of the Bible gets the facts about the moon (and astronomy) wrong as well: > > \*Mat 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: \* > > You linked to ICR, which values sticking to the Bible, regardless of the evidence. It also values misleading it’s readers as Tomndebb pointed out. So I cannot trust that source and further more, if you care about the truth, neither should you. > > First, it’s been pointed out that this is wrong. > > Second, the fossils we see are not sorted in such a manner and your explanation of why we don’t see hominids with trilobites is absurd and has no evidence. Trilobites were marine creatures, they would have been able to keep up with a hominid, although most marine creatures would die and there would be no fresh water creatures alive after the flood (yet, oddly, we find them). > > I’m not sure what your point about the plants being without the Sun for a single day has to do with anything. Are you telling me that they could produce seeds and such without heat, light, nutrients, etc? Are these magic plants? > > It’s not just surviving without any light - it’s without any heat, light, moisture, etc, etc. > > The question is very relevant because it makes your proposition - that we should take the Bible literally - absolutely embarrassing for you. You keep trying to minimize it, as though the only effect the Sun has on the planet is light, that’s not the case at all. > > Evolution doesn’t claim any of this. Until you put forth something that is actually what scientists (not creationists) teach, I see no reason to answer your strawmen. > > Notice I quote where your book (Bible) is absurd - you, on the other hand, simply make up stuff and then claim that evolution claims this. > > That’s dishonest. > > By all means correct him and tell us all how God created light, the universe, life, etc without resorting to something is akin to magic. I mean, what do you want us to call it? Thanks for the cites, but you would have to compare it with the Hebrew used in Gen 1:3, not in the same verse. After that we can move back to MT 24, again. ---
**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, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/637 "2013-07-18T16:38:58Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I gave exceptions based on intelligence, mobility, and location. Which doesn’t explain the fact that the fossil record looks nothing like you’re saying it should look. However it does contradict your own theory, so there’s that. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/638 "2013-07-18T16:43:42Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Which doesn’t explain the fact that the fossil record looks nothing like you’re saying it should look. However it does contradict your own theory, so there’s that. If you would like to cite a portion of the fossil record that seemingly contradicts what im saying, please do. Again, you will only find a portion, never the full geologic column, which was simply invented by an atheist lawyer named Lyell. However I can quickly point to any number of polystrate fossils which contradicts your theory, immediately. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/639 "2013-07-18T17:00:27Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If you would like to cite a portion of the fossil record that seemingly contradicts what im saying, please do. Again, you will only find a portion, never the full geologic column, which was simply invented by an atheist lawyer named Lyell. > > However I can quickly point to any number of polystrate fossils which contradicts your theory, immediately. Do you believe that the science of geology as practiced today (which does things like find oil deposits) is an elaborate plot designed to discredit Christianity? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/640 "2013-07-18T17:17:08Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I gave exceptions based on intelligence, mobility, and location. Nobody else here can cite the complete fossil ‘record’ or geologic column anyways, so your point is irrelevant. Already did this earlier, on this page, and you had nothing to say about it. It’s been proven, you’ve been shown this, you have yet to rebut any of it, you are wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=33)