the universe ... chance? or does it have a creator ?

[sMASH]

hoss man, the the evidence 'scientists' have gathered may not be 100% conclusive, in all cases, but they have a lot more than the creationists, whose only evidence is a perceived lack of evidence on the scientists side.

that pic of the dinosaur u touting as proof as man co-existing with dinosaur, you all actually believe that? if so, then the same thing u accuse the evolutionists about, u all doin.


but i tell u, if one of u all want to drink poison, like chlorine or cyanide, not no jokey gramoxone, or if one of u want to go the extra mile and perform a self inflicted decapitation, and resurrect yourself back to life from that, i would be there to document it,, scientifically.
better yet, brian lara promenade.

as proof in the from of scientifically documented procedure of performing acts in ur bible.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ "the heavens and the earth were joined together, before We clove them asunder" proves big bang theory?

in any case the earth was not around during the big bang.

typical trini.... before yuh view the broader picture yuh quick to make out. is the concept of God existing we rappin about here, what about all the other statements they have no right also? Duane yuh is a rell bachannalist ah feel mg man hack yuh porfile.

you are guilty of exactly the same thing then

you read one post I make and brand me a bachannalist

In the video Zakir Naik say the Qu'ran has proof of the Big Bang Theory 1400 years before the scientists and then goes on to quote a sentence. I also quoted the sentence and asked how does this prove the big bang. But just because I don't agree with Zakir Naik and you and I question the thing makes me a bachannalist - should I just accept it as the truth and stay quiet?

and before you go all jihad on me, i am not questioning the Qu'ran; I am questioning Zakir Naik's logic and your willingness to believe what he is saying.

[turbohead]

^ "the heavens and the earth were joined together, before We clove them asunder" proves big bang theory?

in any case the earth was not around during the big bang.

typical trini.... before yuh view the broader picture yuh quick to make out. is the concept of God existing we rappin about here, what about all the other statements they have no right also? Duane yuh is a rell bachannalist ah feel mg man hack yuh porfile.

you are guilty of exactly the same thing then

you read one post I make and brand me a bachannalist

In the video Zakir Naik say the Qu'ran has proof of the Big Bang Theory 1400 years before the scientists and then goes on to quote a sentence. I also quoted the sentence and asked how does this prove the big bang. But just because I don't agree with Zakir Naik and you and I question the thing makes me a bachannalist - should I just accept it as the truth and stay quiet?

and before you go all jihad on me, i am not questioning the Qu'ran; I am questioning Zakir Naik's logic and your willingness to believe what he is saying.

the bachannalist part was a joke eh.
and what do you mean by going jihad on you? you of all ppl here should no the true meaning of jihad, ie. not holy war. his knowledge on the platform far supersedes mine. his logic makes sense as he tries to put it layman's terms. he is a knowledgeable person in comparative religion and once he doesnt try to twist the Quran to suit his own desires it is in my best interest to try and understand.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ the jihad part was a joke too!

Zakir Naik has a superhuman ability to read and remember and retain information. No doubt he is very intelligent, but he is insulting his audience's intelligence when he expects them to believe that surah proves or describes the big bang theory.

it is like someone claiming
"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb",
The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus
is proof that Nostradamus accurately prophesized the 9/11 attack.

dem words can be interpreted to mean many things.

it's good to think for yourself sometimes to pick sense from non-sense

of course fundamentalists will say God gave us his holy text so that we do not have to think for ourselves - but that is what makes them fundamentalists.

[sMASH]

turbo, i too believe that interpretation of the qur'an, but look at the statement from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe it like a non muslim or an atheist. literally, speaking, the heavens and the earth being cloven asunder on face value, seems to be the sky being separated from the land.
if one does not have the idea of the big bang in their head, then one cannot get an image of the big bang from that statement.

what it is not exact proof, but it is a little indicator. some one working of stuff which leads to big bang theory, would think back on the passage, and say that it says that the heavens were separated in a violent great action, and that the heavens and earth were together as one.
then u read sumthing else, like the salt water and fresh water being separated by a barrier, then studying the water courses and discovering that there is region of separation between salt water in the sea, and fresh water flowing into it from rivers, and that they can flow for great distances, still separated, when simple logic and knowledge would suggest that they should mix.
then reading sumthing again, like having knowledge of all on the earth and the heavens down to an atom's weight, and even smaller than that. that seems to be a description indicating subatomic particles, at a time when the most extreme thinking was that the smallest particles was atomic particles... it can be taken as a good guess that there are smaller particles than atoms, but, it is a good guess.
then come across where women should not be outside in public alone, unaccompanied. people say that that is oppression. due to violence against women, places in america advise that women move around in groups and not alone, and a city in india implemented that a special system to transport women from work to home, so that they do not have to travel alone in public.

to us who believe, it is enough proof, but to those who don't believe, it is just some interesting coincidences and not enough 'proof'. all u can do is state your interpretation, and that is the limit of your duty. the rest is out of your hands.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

so you are saying that someone who believes in Nostradamus and who knows his quatrains will see 9/11 and know he was talking about it in the 1500's? That makes the verse REALLY about 9/11?

or does it just find something that kinda somehow resembles something else and tries to give it merit?

I also don't see how becoming a believer of a concept changes what a piece of text states.
Religious texts should be the same for a believer and the non-believer. It is after all there to convince all that reads it - that is it's purpose, not so?

[Soundwave]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ heard they gave out preparation H at the end of the performance lol

[sMASH]

well, it did not say that there was land first, and then the light was made, and then the heavens. it said that the heavens and the earth were cloven asunder.
it did not say that a great snake came and was destroyed, and then we live under the stretched out skin. it said that the heavens and and earth were joined together and then cloven asunder.

then there is where it said that the heavens were constructed with might and that it is being steadily expanded.

and then it used a marker in time to signify an event, and the marker was that when the sun rises in the west.
is just that there are so many things which, to me, relate to this world that appeals to me. when i compare it to some others this seems more correct than them.

so for the nostrodamus point, i may have to say yes...

as for changing the meaning, it does not state specific scientific facts, it is not a text book of science. it does have specific rules for us to live by and simple descriptive accounts of some principles of nature. not all people are logically thinking people, science does not appeal to them.

how should i say, i have seen and considered enough for me to believe. other people may not be convinced by those things, but other things they have encountered leads them to believe that it is something to be followed.

i can't put what i want to say into words, except that, if we had all the answers, we would not need to have questions, and there would be not point to make things to make questions about.

kinda circular logic, but if that is circular, then atheism is logical singularity.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ there are alot of things that we have proof of that were not mentioned - big events that changed the face of the earth

the dinosaurs lived for millions of years longer than humans yet we'd be lucky to find more than a sentence that might allude to their creation or existence - more than likely very vague. There are, however, actual bones and fossils in abundance.

if you say the books were written for humans, so spending too much time on dinosaurs didnt make sense I'd say ok, but they do spend quite alot talking about angels, demons and jinn etc in great detail which we have no empirical evidence of.

[sMASH]

angels and jinn have more dealings with humans (albeit para-normally, if i dare venture down that road) than the dinosaurs. this has the cog wheels turning again. i am thinking by now some body would have dug up sumting regarding dinosaurs. but then again, the book is somewhat small, and next ting u know, the chinese had found all the fossils and ground them up to make mets'n (medicine), leaving none to corroborate the story, and people accuse it of having more 'weird' things than otherwise.
it's just a book of guidance on how humans should live, with some nifty little references to science and nature stuff embedded all over the place. who's to say why what was chosen and why what was not.
and really, things like dinosaur not that important to the advancement or understanding which leads to significant advancement of humans. i mean is nice to know that they were here and they were large, but what can i use that knowledge for.

but this point is interesting.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ interesting point, true

if dinosaurs were so unimportant, why then did they rule the earth for 160 million years and humans only have been here for the past 200,000 - that's a mighty long time to end up being unimportant for, don't you think?

are humans really THAT important? or has out "intelligence" also given us the ego to claim that God made the universe for humans to rule.

[megadoc1]

hoss man, the the evidence 'scientists' have gathered may not be 100% conclusive, in all cases, but they have a lot more than the creationists, whose only evidence is a perceived lack of evidence on the scientists side.
such nonsense!!!!! the same evidence that the scientists have are the same
available to the creationist,, they are both scientists, do not attempt to put a wedge between them.....
really ... this is not the issue here ,I am speaking about the ones who are not scientist,
but taking the scientist's word in faith (because it is clear that they don't even have access to the tests done by the scientists,most of what they know comes thru books or word of mouth)and calling it facts although it is not proven,all in the end to use it to trump religion
which is based entirely on faith........




that pic of the dinosaur u touting as proof as man co-existing with dinosaur, you all actually believe that? if so, then the same thing u accuse the evolutionists about, u all doin.
I really have NO clue what you speak of


but i tell u, if one of u all want to drink poison, like chlorine or cyanide, not no jokey gramoxone, or if one of u want to go the extra mile and perform a self inflicted decapitation, and resurrect yourself back to life from that, i would be there to document it,, scientifically.
better yet, brian lara promenade.

as proof in the from of scientifically documented procedure of performing acts in ur bible.
yuh mean yuh want me to be stupid like those who blew themselves up in the name of a deity?
understand this....... the bible is a faith thing
the people who subscribes to the bible learns that without faith It is impossible to please God..so you can have all the proof you want, in the end,the God of the bible is looking for child like faith
the Christians believe that, God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son so whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life,
it never says whosoever gets proof...its about faith

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ since when creationists are scientists?
no one is taking the scientists word in faith - the scientists provide empirical evidence.
Otherwise it would not be science!
There is a ton of real, hard evidence - Evolution at various scales, bones, fossils, photos of planets, carbon dating.
Far more than I've seen presented by you!

A couple hundred years ago if a scientist calculated and announced an upcoming a lunar eclipse they would burn him in the town square as a warlock when it really happened. Now you want to say creationists are scientists? Do you know the definition of the word?

[sMASH]

it would have been nice to have a reference to dinosaurs. this is worth more than considering, it is worth an investigation. then there are the things which are present but are not known, like the under surface of the moons of the outer planets, or the other earth like planets in other systems. these things are here but not directly mentioned.

what is known is that we are told that things are created that we know of, and do not know of. also that we should acquire knowledge from the cradle to the grave, which is more like questioning and investigating the world around us.

this guidance was sent to mankind, who's to say that there is not another or other communities of sentient life with guidance of their own, with similar general sentiments, but different specific laws.


coming from this latest set of talks, i have two peeves developing. the small one is an examination of the scriptures to detect, if at all, there are any more specific references to dinosaurs and the other bigger one, is to determine the nature of the stuff that is mentioned, i.e. are they all or majority of them have an association with the advancement of humans, or are there a lot of mentions of stuff which really are useless for any thing more than knowledge of the past, like dinosaurs.



mega, u accuse the evolutionists of not having sufficient substantial evidence to support their claims, but then u show a shadow of a silhouette on a stone and then tout that as an manufactured image of men living side by side with dinosaurs.

[Humes]

Do you know the definition of the word?

This is why it doh make no sense debating these fellas. They doh know, they doh that know they doh know, and they doh care that they doh know that they doh know.

Only good reason to respond to them is for the benefit of people who might be reading and interested in knowing the facts.

Fellas like megadoc learn about science from the same places they learn about religion. So they disagreeing with something they've been misled about at a fundamental level.

I learned about faith from the Bible and communities of worship. So when I contend I know what I contending.

[megadoc1]

^ since when creationists are scientists?
tell me who cannot be a scientist and
what disqualifies a person from being a scientist?
because in context I was speaking about the creationist who are scientist..


no one is taking the scientists word in faith - the scientists provide empirical evidence.
Otherwise it would not be science!
right !! but it is unscientific to use your conclusions based on the evidence available as fact .......even when they are not proven


There is a ton of real, hard evidence - Evolution at various scales, bones, fossils, photos of planets, carbon dating.
Far more than I've seen presented by you!
LOL... how much have you seen of the scientists?
last time i checked, you haven't presented any evidence either,you are acting on faith in the scientists
you can say that you have your evidence to date, but you can't speculate on whether you have taken all possible evidence.(especially when you disregard any thing spiritual) you cannot say that evidence for evolution is complete or wholly correct,you need to continue to test it any way you can. But scientific proof is not the same as a complete proof - scientific proof is about the balance of available data, as we know in science that nothing is proved beyond doubt.


A couple hundred years ago if a scientist calculated and announced an upcoming a lunar eclipse they would burn him in the town square as a warlock when it really happened. Now you want to say creationists are scientists? Do you know the definition of the word? What utter fundamentalist nonsense. you are Just as the religious fundamentalists who tend to totally discount, deny, and argue against the value and worth of the sciences,is that your argument LOL.....are you now saying there are no christian scientists?

mega, u accuse the evolutionists of not having sufficient substantial evidence to support their claims, but then u show a shadow of a silhouette on a stone and then tout that as an manufactured image of men living side by side with dinosaurs.

is either you are mistaking me with someone else or you are lying get your facts straight
my friend

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Humes I'm hoping that megadoc1 and the other people reading can use some simple logic.

it would have been nice to have a reference to dinosaurs. this is worth more than considering, it is worth an investigation. then there are the things which are present but are not known, like the under surface of the moons of the outer planets, or the other earth like planets in other systems. these things are here but not directly mentioned.

you agree then that we cannot write about what we don't know?

The simplest explanation why dinosaurs were not mentioned in the holy books is because man had not known about them when the books were written. Had they known, or as megadoc1 and bluefete claim, had man roamed the earth alongside these dinosaurs, it would have definitely been more than a very vague mention in the holy books.

coming from this latest set of talks, i have two peeves developing. the small one is an examination of the scriptures to detect, if at all, there are any more specific references to dinosaurs and the other bigger one, is to determine the nature of the stuff that is mentioned, i.e. are they all or majority of them have an association with the advancement of humans, or are there a lot of mentions of stuff which really are useless for any thing more than knowledge of the past, like dinosaurs.

it is only useless if no scientific process is applied to it. The study of the past in biology, geology etc help tremendously in our advancement today.

Similarly the holy books have some things mentioned in high details, such as Solomon's (Prophet Sulaiman) great architecture - is that useful in our advancement?

mega, u accuse the evolutionists of not having sufficient substantial evidence to support their claims, but then u show a shadow of a silhouette on a stone and then tout that as an manufactured image of men living side by side with dinosaurs.

which was the same thing I was saying of Zakir Naik's "proof" that the big bang was mentioned in the qu'ran.

[DFC]

[matthewmazda]

science vs religion who in then ?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ since when creationists are scientists?
tell me who cannot be a scientist and
what disqualifies a person from being a scientist?
because in context I was speaking about the creationist who are scientist..


no one is taking the scientists word in faith - the scientists provide empirical evidence.
Otherwise it would not be science!
right !! but it is unscientific to use your conclusions based on the evidence available as fact .......even when they are not proven


There is a ton of real, hard evidence - Evolution at various scales, bones, fossils, photos of planets, carbon dating.
Far more than I've seen presented by you!
LOL... how much have you seen of the scientists?
last time i checked, you haven't presented any evidence either,you are acting on faith in the scientists
you can say that you have your evidence to date, but you can't speculate on whether you have taken all possible evidence.(especially when you disregard any thing spiritual) you cannot say that evidence for evolution is complete or wholly correct,you need to continue to test it any way you can. But scientific proof is not the same as a complete proof - scientific proof is about the balance of available data, as we know in science that nothing is proved beyond doubt.


A couple hundred years ago if a scientist calculated and announced an upcoming a lunar eclipse they would burn him in the town square as a warlock when it really happened. Now you want to say creationists are scientists? Do you know the definition of the word? What utter fundamentalist nonsense. you are Just as the religious fundamentalists who tend to totally discount, deny, and argue against the value and worth of the sciences,is that your argument LOL.....are you now saying there are no christian scientists?

you are truly delusional

you yourself said that there is no levels of Christianity - it's all or none. To be a true Christian you must believe the entire scripture whole heartedly.
The bible shows that the earth was created ~6000 years ago - no proper scientist is going to subscribe to that. Calling yourself a scientist does not make you one!

PLEASE go and read up on the scientific process before posting a reply.

[megadoc1]

you are truly delusional
ha ha ..thats it???

you yourself said that there is no levels of Christianity - it's all or none. To be a true Christian you must believe the entire scripture whole heartedly.
yes but I cannot see what this have to do with anything that we are speaking about, are you saying that a spiritual person cannot be a scientist???


The bible shows that the earth was created ~6000 years ago - no proper scientist is going to subscribe to that. Calling yourself a scientist does not make you one!
define a "proper" scientist??
then see if you can discredit these Creationists holding science doctorates
Agard, E. Theo
Allan, James
Anderson, Kevin
Armstrong, Harold
Arndt, Alexander
Austin, Steven
Barnes, Thomas
Batten, Don
Baumgardner, John
Bergman, Jerry
Boudreaux, Edward
Byl, John
Catchpoole, David
Chadwick, Arthur
Chaffin, Eugene
Chittick, Donald
Cimbala, John
Clausen, Ben
Cole, Sid
Cook, Melvin
Cumming, Ken
Cuozzo, Jack
Darrall, Nancy
Dewitt, David
DeYoung, Donald
Downes, Geoff
Eckel, Robert
Faulkner, Danny
Ford, Dwain
Frair, Wayne
Gentry, Robert
Giem, Paul
Gillen, Alan
Gish, Duane
Gitt, Werner
Gower, D.B.
Grebe, John
Grocott, Stephen
Harrub, Brad
Hawke, George
Hollowell, Kelly
Holroyd, Edmond
Hosken, Bob
Howe, George
Humphreys, D. Russell
Javor, George
Jones, Arthur
Kaufmann, David
Kennedy, Elaine
Klotz, John
Koop, C. Everett
Korochkin, Leonid
Kramer, John
Lammerts, Walter
Lester, Lane
Livingston, David
Lopez, Raul
Marcus, John
Marsh, Frank
Mastropaolo, Joseph
McCombs, Charles
McIntosh, Andrew
McMullen, Tom
Meyer, Angela
Meyer, John
Mitchell, Colin
Morris, Henry
Morris, John
Mumma, Stanley
Parker, Gary
Peet, J. H. John
Rankin, John
Rosevear, David
Roth, Ariel
Rusch, Wilbert
Sarfati, Jonathan
Snelling, Andrew
Standish, Timothy
Taylor, Stephen
Thaxton, Charles
Thompson, Bert
Thomson, Ker
Vardiman, Larry
Veith, Walter
Walter, Jeremy
Wanser, Keith
Whitcomb, John
White, A.J.(Monty)
Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
Wile, Jay
Williams, Emmett
Wise, Kurt
Wolfrom, Glen
Zuill, Henry



PLEASE go and read up on the scientific process before posting a reply.
I think you are the one who needs to do this because you think that a scientist cannot have a religious worldview

[megadoc1]

A couple hundred years ago if a scientist calculated and announced an upcoming a lunar eclipse they would burn him in the town square as a warlock when it really happened. Now you want to say creationists are scientists? Do you know the definition of the word?

guess the table has turned......

"We can have the academic freedom to have all kinds of ideas and philosophies but, lo and behold, even mention intelligent design and there are people that want to run you out of town on a rail,"

An Arlington lawmaker has filed a bill aimed at protecting Texas college professors and students from discrimination because they question evolution.

The measure from Republican state Rep. Bill Zedler would block higher education institutions from discriminating against or penalizing teachers or students based on their research into intelligent design or other theories that disagree with evolution.

Zedler said he filed the bill because of cases in which colleges had been hostile to those who believe that certain features of life-forms are so complex that they must have originated from a higher power.

"We can have the academic freedom to have all kinds of ideas and philosophies but, lo and behold, even mention intelligent design and there are people that want to run you out of town on a rail," Zedler said.

Zedler said fear of workplace discrimination is preventing evolution critics in colleges from speaking their minds.

"I do believe there are people that want to say something but ... they're afraid to because there are people around the country that have been discriminated against," Zedler said.

Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a watchdog group that opposes religious influence in public education, described the bill as an effort to push an ideological agenda into colleges by suggesting that intelligent design theorists are subject to persecution.

"It's kind of a broad and cynical strategy to undermine sound science at a time when our state and nation's economy depends on science to thrive," Miller said.

In January, the University of Kentucky paid $125,000 to settle a discrimination lawsuit with Martin Gaskell, an astronomy professor who claimed that he was passed over for an observatory director job in part because of statements he made that were perceived as critical of evolution.

Gaskell, who recently worked in the University of Texas at Austin's astronomy program, wrote in an e-mail Thursday that he is now an astrophysics professor at Valparaiso University in Chile. Although he doesn't study intelligent design, he said those who do deserve to be protected.

"I think that it is important that the state of Texas stands firmly behind academic freedom," Gaskell said.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/03/17 ... z1JnXKyzX1

[sMASH]

writing about what one does not know is possible.

if someone else gives u the words to write. the data in the writing would not be of great significance to the writer and the others who do not understand it. but it may have meaning at another time.

but i think i understand what ur coming with. at that time, dinosaurs were not known about, or at least in any form resembling our contemporary understanding of them, so no body could write about them. but they were a major part of this earth's history, and there is evidence of their presence readily available, so it is reasonable to assume that some mention should be there, even more so, when, there are already mentions and more of other things which are of lesser significance.

as i said, interesting. i cannot argue against that,,,



about zakir's reference, where the heavens and the earth were joined together, and then separated by being cloven asunder,,,, god help me, but i see that as contemporary big bang..
the blinders not on my eyes, it in my mind,,, to me, the image from those words i get is that the heavens and the earth, all that we could know about in this reality, is in one finite form, and then separated at a point in time in a great action.... and to me that is big bang, with out the einstien maths and the hubble projections, but in a form that simple people could remember and imagine.

[megadoc1]

I will edit post as I watch

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

about zakir's reference, where the heavens and the earth were joined together, and then separated by being cloven asunder,,,, god help me, but i see that as contemporary big bang..
the blinders not on my eyes, it in my mind,,, to me, the image from those words i get is that the heavens and the earth, all that we could know about in this reality, is in one finite form, and then separated at a point in time in a great action.... and to me that is big bang, with out the einstien maths and the hubble projections, but in a form that simple people could remember and imagine.

I can't see the direct relation

I see a direct relation to the surah talking about the heaven and earth are separte - which we know - but big bang? that is a stretch.

later on in that surah there is mention of the mountains on the same earth and how they prevent earthquakes, so the earth they are talking about is not material matter in the universe but the earth (planet) itself. The planet earth was not around, developed yet when the big bang occurred, no planets or mountains were, therefore making the co-relation an even further stretch.

[megadoc1]

wow!! I think that documentary just about sums it up

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ if that kinda thing swoons you then you should watch Religulous with Bill Maher to give some balance

your list is nice - can you list it again with their field next to it.

I think you are the one who needs to do this because you think that a scientist cannot have a religious worldview

but tell me what happens to this religious "scientist" when he is doing his research and finds that the earth is billions of years old and not what their holy book tells them?

[devrat]

^^^If it is discovered that there is a God, there will be no religion. If they discover that God does not exist.....guess what....there will be no religion.

[megadoc1]

^ if that kinda thing swoons you then you should watch Religulous with Bill Maher to give some balance
actually I did, when you first mentioned it in blufete's ched..but we are dealing with science here now and the
"politics" behind it. every body already knows about what goes on in religion but few knows that science is struggling with a similar issue

I think you are the one who needs to do this because you think that a scientist cannot have a religious worldview

your list is nice - can you list it again with their field next to it.
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
click that link, it will take you the the fields of each one of them
when you click on their names

but tell me what happens to this religious "scientist" when he is doing his research and finds that the earth is billions of years old and not what their holy book tells them?
lol.. you have a few problems here.....you put scientist in quotation marks because you cant seem to grasp that there are such people....plus you failed to realize that through research no one ever finds that the earth is billions of years old ..it is an estimate(yet to be proven) and
last you are comparing it to a holy book which is based on faith.................
however many scientists once had a religious world view but turned atheists
after studying evolution,I cannot disagree with them because it is almost a requirement
to become an atheist,just to study evolution in its present dangerous state and
to be a somebody in the scientific community ....a perfect example of this is your reluctance to accept that there are scientists with religious world views..
fundamentalist??