>>Even most reputable scientists acknowledge the existence of a creator.
Do you have a reference for this?
Dave
OK, so let's test the Creationism advocates out here.............
by 5go 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
catbert
If you believe a God created life on earth, you must at least believe that he/she/it is experimenting with "natural selection", survival of the fittest.
-
kid-A
Integ writes: Even most reputable scientists acknowledge the existence of a creator. I don't need a "picture" of something, to know it exists/existed.
LMAOROFL !!!! This is total B.S. Since I am a scientist, and an active member of the research community, you dont have ANY idea what you are talking about. I dont know a single scientist in my immediate field (neurobiology) OR in any other related disciplines that "acknowledge the existence of a creator". There are a handful of pro-creationists in the community (virtually all located in the U.S.), and they all have overt political agendas and are for the most part, not respected by their peers.
-
dedpoet
Even most reputable scientists acknowledge the existence of a creator.
Maybe some do, but I doubt it's most. Name a few
-
nvrgnbk
The question that keeps popping up in my mind when I read these debates is:
Where is God now and what is He up to?
We were not there to see what happened or when or why or how.
But we are here now. Where is He and what is He doing?
-
Abaddon
Qcmbr
I can't decide whether you are totally missing the point or beilngdeliberately obtuse in an amusing fashion, knowing what the point is.
5go
God could be using evolution. I don't think so hence I am an atheist but if I were to believe in a deity again. I would still know evolution is how he did it.
I too am stumbled by the faithless ones who think god is incapable of using evolution to make the world as it is. They blaspheme against the Most High... anyway, what we all really wan to know is why is god the most high, and who is his dealer? Andwhat did Frank mean when he sang 'Doobie doobie do'?
integ
What Almost asked for please. Not only a reference listing WHO these reputable scientists are, but a definition of 'reputable' too whilst you are at it. Torquemada was probably considered a reputable theolgian by some...
Notaness
I am curious about your replies on the thread you started that this thread is parodying. I am sure you get the point that is being made and have to ask, why do you ask for evidence of evolution you are unable to supply in support of your own belief system?
-
Qcmbr
I was pratting about.
-
5go
5go,
Even most reputable scientists acknowledge the existence of a creator.
I don't need a "picture" of something, to know it exists/existed.
At best I have found some scientist that are religious. But so am I and it's just because of social reasons (fading) Show me where these scientist are.
-
Madame Quixote
5go,
Even most reputable scientists acknowledge the existence of a creator.
I don't need a "picture" of something, to know it exists/existed.
Well, if you're referring to a few of those fog-brained Templeton Prize-Winners, then, yes, most of those "scientists" do believe in god.
They're also bought and paid for by the Templeton Foundation and by other right-wing "Christian" creationists, who are not scientists.
Creation "science" is in fact, pseudo-science and is held in very low regard by most scientists, particularly by well-trained biologists.
Those few good scientists who do believe in god make sure it does not get in the way of their research and do have the good sense not to bring creationism into their work, lest they be regarded as laughingstocks by their scientific peers.
As far as I know, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper/theory of creationism presented by scientists and it has been blown out of the water a number of times. Its author is totally discredited in the scientific community and is a laughingstock.
The majority of the most hightly respected and accomplished scientists are atheists, by the way.
-
LtCmd.Lore
Even most reputable scientists acknowledge the existence of a creator.
I'm not sure where you got your figures integ. But, let me be the first to produce some statistics:
In 1916 a study about the religious beliefs of scientists was taken. 60% of the scientists responded, a figure considered high for any surveys. Of those, 40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not.
Also of interest:
Larson's survey also discovered that physicists were less likely to have such faith, while mathematicians were significantly more likely to believe in a supreme being, as defined by Leuba.
More recently in 1997, another survey was taken:
When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism."
Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%.
76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914,
and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement.
Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
The more we learn, the more atheist scientists we have.
MOST scientists are atheists, or at least agnostic. Only 7 percent of scientists believe in god... and most of those theistic scientists are mathematicians.
Lore