[Tj3]

I once knew a zoologist who spent his vacations square dancing with his wife. I've known several with an interest in motorcycles. But I've never known a good biologist whose main interest wasn't the science itself. If it's just a job, they are not going to be good scientists.

So who said that those who are Christians or who have other hobbies do not have a main interest in science. That again, seems not just presumptuous, but very judgmental of what others can enjoy or do in their lives.

Maybe we should put your outside activities under a microscope to see if you could become a good scientist.

I don't think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is compatible with a scientific understanding of the world, at least not in the big picture sense.

Your opinion is noted, but I would suggest that most scientists can only dream of being as good as many of the Christian scientists. Pre-judging is not compatible with good science, and when someone prejudges others based upon their faith in God, that indicates that they engage in prejudging (which is the same thing as prejudice). If a person would engage in prejudging elsewhere in their life, how can we know that would not spill over into their work as a scientist and impair their objectivity?

[asking]

So who said that those who are Christians or who have other hobbies do not have a main interest in science.

Not I.

Your opinion is noted,

Really? By whom?

but I would suggest that most scientists can only dream of being as good as many of the Christian scientists.

No doubt.

As I recall, I was making a joke about devil worship and bigamy not being suitable hobbies for a serious scientist. I stand by that.

[Tj3]

Not I.

Good - then there is nothing about outside interests or being a Christian that in any way impairs a person from being a good scientist. We agree.

[asking]

Good - then there is nothing about outside interests or being a Christian that in any way impairs a person from being a good scientist. We agree.

Hardly. First of all it would depend entirely on what you meant by "being a Christian."
Obviously, 7 percent of members of the National Academy of Sciences are believers of some sort, though I don't know if they are Christians. They may all be Muslims for all I know. Well I know Francis Collins is Christian. So that's one.

You asked "So who said that those . . ." I did not say anything like what follows.

And your two sentences are hardly equivalent.

So who said that those who are Christians or who have other hobbies do not have a main interest in science.

then there is nothing about outside interests or being a Christian that in any way impairs a person from being a good scientist.

Just to be clear. I didn't say the first one and I don't agree with the second one.

[Tj3]

Just to be clear. I didn't say the first one and I don't agree with the second one.

Okay, you seem all over the map here.

Do you or do you not believe that being a Christian impairs the chances of a person being a good scientist - YES or NO.

[Akoue]

Okay, you seem all over the map here.

Do you or do you not believe that being a Christian impairs the chances of a person being a good scientist - YES or NO.

Weren't you just told that it depends what you mean by "being a Christian"? If your idea of "being a Christian" means believing the earth to be approximately six thousand years old, then no, it's not compatible with doing good science. At least not in biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, or geology. I'm sure I left a few out.

[asking]

What Akoue said.

Plus, "What is this? 20 questions?"

[Tj3]

Weren't you just told that it depends what you mean by "being a Christian"? If your idea of "being a Christian" means believing the earth to be approximately six thousand years old, then no, it's not compatible with doing good science.

No doubt similar thoughts were expressed to men like Galileo too. This response is akin to saying - you don't agree with my opinion, so you are not a scientist. A scientific response would be long the lines of "I don't think so, but if you have some evidence that may point that way, let's have a look".let's look at the evidence and see.

I wonder if you ever thought why so many spectacular discoveries have been made over the centuries by men who were thinking outside of the normal boundaries. The reason is because if you only accept what is known today, you will never seen what is unknown. It is not those minds closed to what they don't agree with that move science forward - they are the ones who oppose progress.

Those who say that you cannot be a good scientist and a good Christian are not scientists themselves, rather they are "priests" (or wannabees) of a religion that they call science. They are not in fact practicing scientists if they are unwilling to keep an open mind.

[asking]

let's look at the evidence and see.

Tom, I already posted the evidence. Remember the data on members of the National Academy? That was evidence.

The top scientists in the United States don't have beliefs like yours. They mostly aren't Christians. They mostly don't even believe in God. In terms of religion, they are an entirely atypical sample of Americans. That's evidence.

Your belief that the world is only 6000 years old is contradicted by geology, paleontology, astronomy, isotope dating (physics), and probably several other fields. It's just absurd from a scientific point of view. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but your belief is not at all compatible with science of the last 150 years.

It was Charles Darwin's reading of the great geologist Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology--given to him by the captain of the HMS Beagle (who was a Christian, by the way)--that helped Darwin begin to understand how old the Earth was.

[Tj3]

Tom, I already posted the evidence. Remember the data on members of the National Academy? That was evidence.

Evidence of what?

The top scientists in the United States don't have beliefs like yours. They mostly aren't Christians. They mostly don't even believe in God. In terms of religion, they are an entirely atypical sample of Americans. That's evidence.

Most people in the US are not Christians - so what? You should know that claim that a person cannot be a Christian to be a scientist based upon a survey of how many scientists are Christians is a completely illogical conclusion.

Probably the only profession where the majority are Christian are the clergy.

Your belief that the world is only 6000 years old is contradicted by geology, paleontology, astronomy, isotope dating (physics), and probably several other fields.

That is your belief, but I have discussed this with members of a number of those same professions and I have examined the evidence and it is not as clear cut as you think. Have you taken the time to consider the assumptions? Have you even looked at the information posted by the increasing numbers of scientists who disagree with your position?

[asking]

Evidence of what?

The evidence you asked for.. .
Get some sleep. I think you are starting to lose it.

Have you even looked at the information posted by the increasing numbers of scientists who disagree with your position?

You haven't given me any reason to think you know what I think and I don't know which scientists you are alluding to, so I can't answer this new question.

[Tj3]

The evidence you asked for.. .
Get some sleep. I think you are starting to lose it.

I did not ask for any evidence.

You haven't given me any reason to think you know what I think and I don't know which scientists you are alluding to, so I can't answer this new question.

It was a generic question. And it should be easy enough if there is no bias against those who disagree with your religious views. If there is, then what you are discussing is no longer science, but a competing religion.

[Shelesh]

I've created a new thread. For all your 'religious' discussions, please post them on 'Validity of Bible and sciences'... I've been reading your answers and sometimes you were completely out of subject.

[Shelesh]

Well, someone said that the world is more than 40 billion years old... I'll study this and submit an answer... Christians say 6,000 and scientists say more than 40 billion.
<<<<BTW, THE BIBLE IS PERFECT>>>>

[firmbeliever]

Maybe I am joining in a little late ,has this thread run its course and is on its way to its demise?

I do not understand why science and religion has to be a fight each time it is brought up.

I find what I believe and follow not to be contradictory with scientific findings. And to have scientific facts about our natural world is something that strengthens my belief.

So yes, science and my belief co-exists without conflict.

[Shelesh]

No, you are not 2 late... Islam and science both says the same things? There's no conflict between them?

[firmbeliever]

No, u r not 2 late... Islam and science both says the same things? There's no conflict between them?

It is not so much as Quran and science saying the same thing,but that the Quran enforces seeking knowledge of the world and how it works.
In Islam we are commanded to look at the creations in the world, which is where science comes in and explains it all.

The Quran does not give a specific time for creation in years, and it mentions that every living thing is made of water,there is no conflict there.
About evolution, the Quran does not specify if we evolved, but it is mentioned that the first human was created by the Almighty.
Quran mentions that the heavens and earth were one before it was "cloven asunder" and that the universe is expanding.

The few things that the Quran does mention related to the natural world has been verified in scientific findings.

[Shelesh]

I'll create a thread for a discussion on Christianity and Islam..

[Tj3]

Well, someone said that the world is more than 40 billion years old.... I'll study this and submit an answer... Christians say 6,000 and scientists say more than 40 billion.
<<<<BTW, THE BIBLE IS PERFECT>>>>

Not all scientists say 40 billion. There is a large group who hold to a young earth also.

[excon]

Not all scientists say 40 billion. There is a large group who hold to a young earth also.

Hello again:

Actually, NO scientists say 40 billion. The Universe is only 13.7 billion years old, and the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. We know that, because of carbon 14 dating. No, really, we KNOW that! We're not making it up!

I submit to you, that any person who says they believe in science, but that the earth is only 6,000 years old, doesn't know how silly he sounds.

excon