[John H K]

Gee, about 99% of those guys were born before the publication of "The Origin of Species" and the majority DIED before the publication of "The Origin of Species."

Also, going through the list, almost every scientist there was later proven wrong about something; Newton, for all his genius, wasted an immense amount of time on the occult and goofy alchemy stuff.

A comparative list of scientists born AFTER 1859 and their discoveries is going to be pretty heavily weighted towards evolutionists.

[ovrtaxt]

Newton, for all his genius, wasted an immense amount of time on the occult and goofy alchemy stuff.

Edison also 'wasted' lots of time on inventions that didn't work.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

First, almost every scientist could be proven wrong about some idea of theirs. Therefore that point of yours means absolutely nothing.

Second,I do not know if anyone has ever been able to prove that Darwinian evolution is "true." If you can point me to such proof, please do so.

Even if Darwinian evolution is considered "true" today, it could certainly be proven "untrue" tomorrow. If that is the case, then your second point means nothing.

The central point in this whole debate is whether the Bible is true or not. Evolution raises some serious theological questions. First, the Bible says the wages of sin is death. If there were billions of years preceding the rise of humans and the introduction of sin into the world, what accounted for all of that death?

Second, other places in the Bible refer to the creation of the world. Exodus 20 for example says that God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. If that statement is not true, then how can you establish the truth of any biblical statement. For example, how can one establish the validity of the virgin birth of Christ, His resurrection, His divinity, His promised return, or the promise of eternity?

If texts referring to origins are debatable because of relatively modern theories that seem cogent and are accepted by "scientists," why should any of these biblical ideas be accepted? They certainly seem to be contrary to "scientific" principles. Should they be discarded as well? If so, you would be left with a Bible that is eviscerated.

The only relevant inquiry in the end is what is the source of "truth?" Is it something determined by the finite minds of feeble men, or does it reside in the Almighty? In order for us to know truth, we must possess omniscience and omnipresence. You must be able to be everywhere to find truth and have the ability to truly know everything.

I do not think that any mere man could make such a claim. Therefore, it would be simply impossible for mortal finite men to establish truth.

[Dimensio]

Also, do count up the number of people in the list who made advances in the field of biology. Consider that someone could have a brilliant grasp of the mechanics of the laws of physics and still be totally ignorant as to biological evolution.