A War Between Science and Religon? Ask Isaac Newton(a Scientist Guided by religious fervor)

AOL News ^ | 06/19/2007 | Dinesh D' Souza

[Shimmer128]

No man knows, and you can’t figure it out using anything, since only the Father knows.

[Wombat101]

If I recall, Newton postulated three or four dates as possibilities.

I find it rather ironic that a man that prcise with everything else could be that imprecise with a prediction of the date of the Apocalypse. And still be taken seriously!

Then again, my agnostic streak says the Apocalypse is all BS anyway, so, perhpas it’s not so surprising at all.

[jimmyray]

One has to define Science first. The definition is a moving target, as the definition commonly accepted (involving observability, reproduceability and falsifiability (is that a word?)) are “splained” differently when discussing evolution.

[rogernz]

there’s a war between dawkins and reality. his arguments are woefully ignorant of theology, so his claims that religion and science are at odds are hardly credible.

[RightWhale]

Should link to yesterday’s thread. It wouldn’t bother old Newton after 300 years to have his threads combined.

[Daralundy]

I dunno. Newton probably created science, but he was a strange,strange man.

[Wombat101]

“One has to define Science first. The definition is a moving target, as the definition commonly accepted (involving observability, reproduceability and falsifiability (is that a word?)) are “splained” differently when discussing evolution.”

They’re also curiously ignored when discussing faith, so I guess that argument cuts both ways, huh?

[tacticalogic]

Are science and religion compatible? Don't ask Dawkins and Hitchens, ask Isaac Newton.

Last I checked, Newton was unavailable for comment.

[Wombat101]

If I remember correctly, the Aztecs calculated the end of the world sometime in the spring (I think it was May) of 2012.

Anyone know if spring of 2012 was one of the dates...ahem...calculated, by Newton?

[dartuser]

Even as a trained biologist, I reject darwinism and evolution. I think science is becoming too much in the form or religion for atheists.

Be careful admitting that ... there are coyotes and assistant professors running around these parts who will rip you to shreads for that.

/sarcasm on>You obviously dont understand how science works/sarcasm off>

[Migraine]

If I remember correctly, the Aztecs calculated the end of the world sometime in the spring (I think it was May) of 2012.

Dang it! My driver's license expires in February...

[jimmyray]

They’re also curiously ignored when discussing faith, so I guess that argument cuts both ways, huh?

Nope. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[Coyoteman]

Then again, my agnostic streak says the Apocalypse is all BS anyway...

Yeah, Armageddon tired of it myself.

[Wombat101]

“Nope. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Nope. Faith is the willful abandonment of reason. No matter how poetically you put it.

Faith does not require evidence, and pointing out that it typically has none to support it will have no effect on the faithful, either.

[Boxen]

Science can never explain our existance. ... When science is used to explain how we are as “Man”, I think its on a dangerous path.

What do you mean and why?

I think science is becoming too much in the form or religion for atheists.

As a trained biologist, I'm sure you are aware that this doesn't really affect the validty of the scientific process.

[Wombat101]

Ah, but there’s a big difference between the “Apocalypse” and “Armageddon”.

The Apocalyspe is the time when God will reveal something.

Armageddon is the final battle between good and evil.

But I did enjoy your pun, nonetheless, sir.

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[Coyoteman]

Ah, but there’s a big difference between the “Apocalypse” and “Armageddon”.

Of course, but there's no easy pun in “Apocalypse!”