Quotes by Scientist Bill Gates

"I devote maybe ten percent to business thinking. Business isn't that complicated. I wouldn't want to put it on my business card. [I'm a] scientist. Unless I've been fooling myself. When I read about great scientists like, say, Crick and Watson and how they discovered DNA, I get a lot of pleasure. Stories of business success don't interest me in the same way. Say you added two years to my life and let me go to business school. I don't think I would have done a better job at Microsoft."
Playboy, July 1994

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
The Road Ahead by Bill Gates, 1995

"Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
Time, January 13, 1997

"Smartness is an ability to absorb new facts. To walk into a situation, have something explained to you, and immediately say, "Well, what about this?" To ask an insightful question. To absorb it in real time. A capacity to remember. To relate to domains that may not seem connected at first."
The Rich and How They Got That Way, 2001

"There are one hundred universities making contributions to robotics. And each one is saying that the other is doing it all wrong."
The World Is Flat, 2005

"Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Whether through democracy, strong public education, quality health care, or broad economic opportunity, reducing inequity is the highest human achievement."
Commencement address, Harvard University, June 7, 2007

"Everybody should watch chemistry lectures—they're far better than you think. Don Sadoway, MIT—best chemistry lessons everywhere. Unbelievable."
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2008

Originally posted by RJHinds
"I devote maybe ten percent to business thinking. Business isn't that complicated. I wouldn't want to put it on my business card. [b] [I'm a] scientist. Unless I've been fooling myself. When I read about great scientists like, say, Crick and Watson and how they discovered DNA, I get a lot of pleasure. Stories of business success don't interest me in the ...[text shortened]... ns everywhere. Unbelievable."
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2008[/b]

Well your first mistake was calling him a scientist. He was not, not by a long shot. His genius was in other areas like vision of the future. I like the comment on religion not being efficient.

It sounds to me like you put this up to put him down. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well your first mistake was calling him a scientist. He was not, not by a long shot. His genius was in other areas like vision of the future. I like the comment on religion not being efficient.

It sounds to me like you put this up to put him down. Good luck with that.

Some like to put Bill Gates down, but I like Bill Gates. He dropped out of college and still became a computer scientist that changed the world we live in. I also agree with Bill Gates that religion is not an efficient way for a computer scientist to spend his time. I don't recall any teachings about computer science coming out of any religious meeting or ceremony.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well your first mistake was calling him a scientist. He was not, not by a long shot. His genius was in other areas like vision of the future. I like the comment on religion not being efficient.

It sounds to me like you put this up to put him down. Good luck with that.

Gates describes himself as a scientist. He is certainly a computer scientist although the computer scientists of my acquaintance refuse to admit that equates to nutty weirdy beardies who peer down telescopes and such like.

Originally posted by Kepler
Gates describes himself as a scientist. He is certainly a computer scientist although the computer scientists of my acquaintance refuse to admit that equates to nutty weirdy beardies who peer down telescopes and such like.

He wrote an OS early on but I think they just bought a working one. I don't think he did much beyond that on his own.

Originally posted by Kepler
Gates describes himself as a scientist. He is certainly a computer scientist although the computer scientists of my acquaintance refuse to admit that equates to nutty weirdy beardies who peer down telescopes and such like.

Bill Gates is more of my type of scientist -- A practical scientist. I don't take much stock in theoretical scientist that can't practice what they preach.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Bill Gates is more of my type of scientist -- A practical scientist. I don't take much stock in theoretical scientist that can't practice what they preach.

Huh? Preaching scientists? That's a new one.

Originally posted by Kepler
Huh? Preaching scientists? That's a new one.

Actually the ones I'm referring to are the ones that preach evillution as fact instead of fiction.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Actually the ones I'm referring to are the ones that preach evillution as fact instead of fiction.

Any true scientist believes in evolution. Not believing in evolution is right up there with believing the earth is flat and the center of the universe.

Originally posted by Phranny
Any true scientist believes in evolution. Not believing in evolution is right up there with believing the earth is flat and the center of the universe.

Perhaps it is the other way around. Maybe the evilutionists is the flat earth scientist and we just have not proved it yet. 😏

A "true" "Scientist" "believes" in nothing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Perhaps it is the other way around. Maybe the evilutionists is the flat earth scientist and we just have not proved it yet. 😏

Creationism is as true as your RHP rating.

Originally posted by woodypusher
Creationism is as true as your RHP rating.

Evil-lution is as true as your fake name.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evil-lution is as true as your fake name.

Why don't you prove it with peer reviewed work? Could it be because there is none? Oh, wait, creationists can't get published because of the huge world wide atheistic conspiracy stopping the truth from getting out.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why don't you prove it with peer reviewed work? Could it be because there is none? Oh, wait, creationists can't get published because of the huge world wide atheistic conspiracy stopping the truth from getting out.

Take a look at my links to the videos I have posted on the Post on starlight. Dr. Russell Humphreys has had published peer reviewed work, but you are probaly right as to why there is not more. There is a comment on that in the last linked video.

P.S. Also ask yourself why do creationist scientists generally not submit their work to peer review by scientists who do not accept scientific creationism?