Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + + + +
agreeing with Philip and then making another point
{{QuoteBox|To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal. It is not until the time of Darwin that atheism appeared to accomplish anything significant in science (Halley’s work in astronomy and mathematics owed no debt to atheism).[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]}}
{{QuoteBox|To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal. It is not until the time of Darwin that atheism appeared to accomplish anything significant in science (Halley’s work in astronomy and mathematics owed no debt to atheism).[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]}}
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
I like "[[scientific revolution]]", and I don't think the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]] is a significant finding. It seems more like an way to justify [[atheism]].
What's wrong with kicking back and '''marveling''' and the intricate patterns in the world God created for us? Why all the distrust and fear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)