Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A War Between Science and Religon? Ask Isaac Newton(a Scientist Guided by religious fervor)
AOL News ^ | 06/19/2007 | Dinesh D' Souza

Posted on 06/20/2007 9:05:55 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

A Jerusalem exhibit of Isaac Newton's manuscripts has some newly-discovered papers showing Newton's calculations of the exact date of the Apocalypse. Using the Book of Daniel, Newton argues that the world will end not earlier than 2060. "It may end later," Newton writes, "but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophecies into discredit as often as their predictions fail." Newton also interprets biblical prophecy to say that the Jews would return to the holy land before the world ends.

Yemima Ben-Manehem, curator of the exhibit, remarks that "these documents show a scientist guided by religious fervor, by a desire to see God's actions in the world." Newton's massive corpus of work reveals that he wrote almost as much about Scripture as he did about science, and indeed he saw his discoveries as showing the handiwork of the divine creator. All of which raises the interesting question: if arguably the greatest scientist of all time was such a fervent believer, indeed if most of the great scientists of the past five hundred years have been practicing Christians, what can we make of the insistence by contemporary atheist writers--from Dawkins to Pinker to Hitchens--that there has been an unceasing war between science and religion?

The atheist case relies on a few key episodes, mostly involving Darwin and Galileo. In my forthcoming book What's So Great About Christianity I will show that these episodes have been ideologically manipulated, and that the "lessons" drawn from them are largely fictitious. Here's a small example of that. We have all heard about the famous showdown between "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. When Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he was descended from an ape on his grandfather's side or his grandmother's side, Huxley famously responded that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a cleric who used his learning to prejudice people against scientific discoveries. The only problem with this incident is that it seems not to have occurred. Huxley apparently made it up to make himself look good. It's not reported in the minutes of the scientific association meeting. Darwin's friend, the botanist Joseph Hooker, was present at the debate. He gave Darwin a full account, which says nothing about Wilberforce's alleged jibe or Huxley's supposed rejoinder. In fact, Hooker told Darwin that Huxley had failed to answer Wilberforce's arguments so that he (Hooker) felt compelled to come to Darwin's defense. Nevertheless Huxley's winning rebuttal lives on in atheist propaganda.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: apocalypse; dsouza; godsgravesglyphs; newton; religion; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-157 next last
Newton Papers Reveal Apocalypse Calculation
by Matti Friedman
AP
Three-century-old manuscripts by Isaac Newton calculating the exact date of the apocalypse, detailing the precise dimensions of the ancient temple in Jerusalem and interpreting passages of the Bible - exhibited this week for the first time - lay bare the little-known religious intensity of a man many consider history's greatest scientist.
Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

51 posted on 06/20/2007 11:47:28 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated June 15, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

You miss the point. It is exactly because he was so precise that he postulated multiple dates. If you don't think that is scientific and precise then you don't understand science or precision. If he listed multiple dates it was because of multiple assumptions which may or may not be true. I.e., his three or four dates resulted from a if/else-if statement. In science when you have multiple possibilities based on multiple specifics that are uncertain, you must enumerate and state the associated assumptions for each.
52 posted on 06/20/2007 11:50:16 AM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Isaac Newton saw end of world in 2060
Times of India | 6/18/07 | AP
Posted on 06/17/2007 10:26:12 PM EDT by voletti
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1851893/posts


53 posted on 06/20/2007 11:50:23 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated June 15, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

KEEP UP THE FIGHT, DON'T GIVE UP. . As I predicted they would try to resurrect it and call it something else. We have to keep our guard up. We need to keep the pressure up. We have no choice but to fight. The oligarchy wants cheap labor and a destruction of the middle class and the millionaire democrats want votes they can count on. A marriage made in HELL.

STAGE TWO is to go after the people who hire illegals. Start giving them fines and arresting them. Just catch ten or 100 of them on the nightly news. The magnet will dry up and most of the 12 million will go home by themselves.

As an addendum, we should anonymously call the IRS, people working "off the books" means taxes ain't being paid. Make anonymous fliers and hang them around the neighborhood, name names. It's time to embarrass these bustards, whether they give to the GOP or Rats, we don't need them.

CALL! CALL! CALL! CALL! AND KEEP CALLING TILL THE LINES FRY!

WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!

Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti illegal immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them. This is a bipartisan issue not a Conservative or Liberal issue BUT AN AMERICAN issue.

STOP AMNESTY NOW!! WE CAN DO IT!!

The best way to stop Shamnesty

54 posted on 06/20/2007 11:52:35 AM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

One can always find logical arguments for one piece of anything. But where are the missing links to support them. What is logical about a rock coming to life. Is that any more believable than some form of intelligence helping it along. This argument will never be settled but there’s something ominous about supposedly open minded professors silencing anything that descents from their one sided views.


55 posted on 06/20/2007 11:54:24 AM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

Is this anywhere near the topic of this thread?


56 posted on 06/20/2007 11:54:35 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Cacique; SirLinksalot

OOPS, I posted the above on the wrong thread, SORRY FOLKS! I menat to just bump the thread up.


57 posted on 06/20/2007 11:54:45 AM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ontap
How convenient, you no longer have to prove your hypothesis we have to disprove it.

You misunderstand. I certainly wouldn't dream of asking anyone to take anything on faith. There's been plenty of examinable, verifiable science done on human evolution, and that science is the basis for the conclusions we have today. If Creationists disagree with those conclusions or the science behind them, I look forward to seeing them provide some real science to validate their disagreement.

And your proof that creationism did not happen is?

I could just as easily ask you to provide proof that the Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, etc. views of creation didn't happen. Where's the proof that the Scientology or Marvel Comics stories of human origins are false? What makes your mythology so special? Where's the evidence?

Put it this way - I have absolutely no evidence that any religion's creation tale is true. I do have some evidence that the theory of evolution is true. Maybe there are holes in the theory and further discoveries will amend or even completely change our current conclusions. That's the way of science - forming reasonable conclusions from the available evidence, and being open to new conclusions based on new evidence. The way of religion is to form a theory without worrying about any evidence - just on some holy man's say-so.
58 posted on 06/20/2007 11:56:28 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

I could just as easily ask you to provide proof that the Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, etc. views of creation didn’t happen. Where’s the proof that the Scientology or Marvel Comics stories of human origins are false? What makes your mythology so special? Where’s the evidence?

I would say I can’t prove it which is exactly the point,I said creationism, not christianity. Also, what is the proof you have about evolution.


59 posted on 06/20/2007 12:01:05 PM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ontap

>>What is logical about a rock coming to life. Is that any more believable than some form of intelligence helping it along. <<

Oh, you mean the origin of life. I was talking about evolution - that’s two different issues.

>>This argument will never be settled but there’s something ominous about supposedly open minded professors silencing anything that descents from their one sided views.<<

In graduate studies, you can debate whatever you want. You can publish whatever you can get published. You can teach things that don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny in other courses. I asked all kinds of questions - like what if this or that were true, what we look for to prove it?

What you shouldn’t do is teach teach kids non-science at the grammar school or high school level and call it science.


60 posted on 06/20/2007 12:01:23 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Oh, you mean the origin of life. I was talking about evolution - that’s two different issues.

Come on! It can’t evolve if it doesn’t start. What started all this evolving.


61 posted on 06/20/2007 12:05:58 PM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
“Define Evidence.”

If I can see it, kick it, spit on it, measure it, fold-spindle-or-mutilate it, if it is verified by a secondary source that meets the same criteria, if it is observable in both it’s properties and it’s behavior, then it’s evidence.

By the same criteria, do you have a Brain? A Soul? Constitutional Rights?

“Do you believe Troy was a real city?”

Yes. The evidence, historical, literary and archelogical is umistakable; a city existed, it fits the general parameters of the city of Troy as described by Homer (amongst others). It may not have been ever called “Troy” but it has come down to us as “Troy” through time and it exists by all the virtues I listed above.

Until 1871 when Heinrich Schliemann discovered the ruins, "they" considered Troy a myth, yet a man who had faith in the validity of Homer's story...

“Do you believe Jesus lived, died, and ressurected?”

I believe that a man who’s name has come down to us a Jesus of Nazareth once existed, that he was executed and then he disappears from history (apparently dead). I do not believe in the ressurection (12 years of Catholic school will do that to you), I do not believe that Jesus claimed divine lineage, and the historical and archelogical evidence available suggests that he was a revolutionary (whether politcal or religious, or both, is open to debate), not a deity.

If one dismisses the resurrection, then one must explain away the circumstantial evidence of the growth of the Christ-followers in the very city where he was murdered, the matyrdom of those who were in a postion to know the resurrection was a lie, and the documentary evidence of the book of Luke, which was written as evidence for Roman court concerning the defence of Paul.

“Do you believe in Anacrtica?”

Yes, I’ve seen it. Have you?

Nope. I have faith that the evidence (literary, video docmentary, etc) is valid. Even having seen it, however, proves only that I saw something I believed was Antarctica. The rabbit hole goes deep, if you think of the implications of what we have actually proved to ourselves.

“Do you believe you exist?”

For all either of us know, we could be conversing with a computer program, not another human being. If you think about it, we are. :-)

62 posted on 06/20/2007 12:06:35 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ontap

>>Oh, you mean the origin of life. I was talking about evolution - that’s two different issues.


Come on! It can’t evolve if it doesn’t start. What started all this evolving.<<

I don’t know. And no reputable scientist would claim they know.

I believe it was God but even then I don’t know whether life was created here or elsewhere and brought here.

In any case, modern evolutionary theory does not address where the first life came from but only how it grew and progressed once it got here.


63 posted on 06/20/2007 12:08:52 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

In any case, modern evolutionary theory does not address where the first life came from but only how it grew and progressed once it got here.

They call it spontaneous generation I believe, and it is put forth along with evolution as a scientific possibility but like evolution the theory part of it always gets lost and it is presented as fact.


64 posted on 06/20/2007 12:15:53 PM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So the article is arguing what? That a major scientist who dabbled in silliness on the side proves that the silliness isn’t silly?

You don't know much about Sir Issac, do you?

65 posted on 06/20/2007 12:20:16 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ontap

Excellent! Because my issue is not with Christian philosophy (the universal brotherhood of man, the corresponding system of rights and responsbilities inherent in such a belief, etc,), my issue is with Christian MYTHOLOGY and the cynical uses to which it has been put over the centuries. Not to mention the hypocritical system of belief that has been constructed to justify that cynicism.


66 posted on 06/20/2007 12:24:09 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

my issue is with Christian MYTHOLOGY

Why just Christian. If it is a myth it seems to creep up in all other religions but you seem to want to single out Christianity. Why?


67 posted on 06/20/2007 12:29:36 PM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ontap
I would say I can’t prove it which is exactly the point,I said creationism, not christianity.

So you're saying that Creationism can be proved while Christianity can't. How does your understanding of Creationism differ from Christianity? In what particulars does Creationism differ significantly from the Biblical account of creation??

Also, what is the proof you have about evolution.

There are a number of respected scientific web sites explaining evolution and the evidence behind it - fossil evidence with several dating methods, natural selection which can be modeled by artificial selection and breeding experiments, observational evidence of responses to environment, and the fact that we share DNA with other living things but most closely with members of the ape family.

Note that there are still holes in the evidence, which further scientific discovery must fill, perhaps modifying our understanding. However, there is still a mass of evidence in favor of evolution - the current theory best matches the evidence we have.

I have yet to hear any compelling evidence that Creationism is credible.
68 posted on 06/20/2007 12:36:39 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

“If one dismisses the resurrection, then one must explain away the circumstantial evidence of the growth of the Christ-followers in the very city where he was murdered, the matyrdom of those who were in a postion to know the resurrection was a lie, and the documentary evidence of the book of Luke, which was written as evidence for Roman court concerning the defence of Paul.”

Explain then, if you will, how millions of Germans, steeped in the Christian tradition found it so easy to dump those traditions and plunge the world into a murderous war that claimed the lives of millions? If the appeal of Christianity was so great, and it’s tenets and mythology established, absolute fact, then no one should have strayed from the path, should they have?

What’s missing in your formulation is context. Millions flocked to Christianity in the same way that millions would later flock to Communism, National Socialism and the Pet Rock; they all seemed to answer to a personal need and offer a vision of society and existance that appeared infinitely better than the one people experienced at that moment in time.

That Christian belief has endured is not all that unusual: other faiths, far older than Christianity, have also endured. Mankind will always need something to believe in.

Again, my issue is not with the philosophy but with the system of illogical nonsense which has been erected to prop it up.


69 posted on 06/20/2007 12:44:04 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

So you’re saying that Creationism can be proved while Christianity can’t.

No! I’m saying none of it can be proved.

There are a number of respected scientific web sites explaining evolution and the evidence behind it

By respected webb site I suppose they are respected because they support your contention.

fossil evidence

I know of no fossil supporting evolution that could not just as well support other theories

artificial selection and breeding experiments,

Every living organism shares some DNA with every other living thing this does not mean one is evolving into the other. Find an example where one species became another. i,e. Two cats mated and produced a dog.


70 posted on 06/20/2007 12:49:10 PM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Did you actually read my statement? I was referring to the same people who shouted "crucify", and the disciples who said they saw the risen Christ. Unlike the 'unwashed masses' you refer to , they were in a position to KNOW if it was true or not. They needed no FAITH!!!

The terrorists who flew into the WTC, OTOH, believed what they could not prove, but attempted to prove it through their actions. This proved nothing, other than their willingness to murder in the name of their 'god'. The disciples died for a belief, you suppose, that they KNEW was a Big Fat LIE!!! If you choose to believe that , OK by me.

71 posted on 06/20/2007 12:50:05 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Define Evidence

Scientific evidence is a prediction of a scientific theory that has been observed. A prediction is a logical deduction of the theory. That is, it is the conclusion of a logical argument from the axioms that comprise the theory. Usually contingent information must be added to formulate the argument so, strictly speaking, the prediction is evidence of the theory plus the contingent information. That's why we hope lots of independent lines of evidence so that the potential falsity of the contingent arguments is of less concern.

I hope that clears it up for you.

72 posted on 06/20/2007 12:58:00 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ontap
No! I’m saying none of it can be proved.

And I'm saying that the mass of evidence allows us to draw reasonable conclusions, subject to new evidence. That's what science has done with the theory of evolution.

By respected webb site I suppose they are respected because they support your contention.

No, I'm not that important. They're respected because of the real science they've done.

I know of no fossil supporting evolution that could not just as well support other theories

What are these theories and how does the fossil evidence support them?

Every living organism shares some DNA with every other living thing this does not mean one is evolving into the other.

So what does it mean? Why create living things which all share DNA to varying degrees? Why ensure that chimps share more of our DNA than any other living creature?

Find an example where one species became another. i,e. Two cats mated and produced a dog.

I don't think this scenario is even possible under the theory of evolution. But if we could observe long enough, we'd see that dogs and cats once had a common ancestor.
73 posted on 06/20/2007 1:02:06 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Why create living things which all share DNA to varying degrees?

I like to think God is fond of software reuse.

74 posted on 06/20/2007 1:12:20 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you torture the data long enough, it will confess, even to crimes it did not commit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot; Coleus

Bump


75 posted on 06/20/2007 1:23:53 PM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
The functions of science and religion are basically the same, and always have been: The discovery of truth. Both pursuits are the pursuit of truth. Those who seek to create a dichotomy are not the servants of truth.

There is nothing in the least surprising that Newton was religious; nor that some historic religious figures strongly encouraged scientific pursuits.

On the other hand, note how the same Socialists who have sought to curb religious observance and belief, have distorted the sciences that relate to the nature of man, in their promotion of such insane goals as World Government, and immigration policies which deliberately undermine the prevailing culture in Western lands. (No! Kennedy, Bush, Lindsey Graham and company are not atheists! But they have bought, 'hook, line and sinker,' the sham socialist science, which treats all peoples as basically interchangeable--creatures of their social environment, which the Communists, Social Democrats and Nazis, all believed they could manipulate to actually change the breed--in other words, recreate man in a new Socialist image.)

William Flax

76 posted on 06/20/2007 1:25:54 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

‘Why’ is not an Aristotlean category question. It is a figment of our syntax that asserts free will and purpose, which makes the question both improper (in its propriety) and incorrect.


77 posted on 06/20/2007 1:27:52 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
That Christian belief has endured is not all that unusual: other faiths, far older than Christianity, have also endured. Mankind will always need something to believe in.

Reckon why Evolution built into man the need to believe in something greater than himself? I sure the answer can easily be explained away, but the Scripture says that "God has set eternity in the hearts of men".

Explain then, if you will, how millions of Germans, steeped in the Christian tradition found it so easy to dump those traditions and plunge the world into a murderous war that claimed the lives of millions?

We all like sheep have gone astray, everyone has turnbed to his own way. The Israelites, pre-David, post-Moses, routinely abandoned the God who brought them out of Egypt. So if you really want to know why "christians" (in name, not in regeneration via new birth) commit heinous acts, look no further than the unregenerate, sinful heart of man.

78 posted on 06/20/2007 1:31:23 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: UltraDude
Which is better? Being made in the image of God and in His image He made man or being evolved from monkeys?

The theory of evolution says man evolved from a common precursor to apes, not monkeys.

I think science when explaining man is bogas! Science denounces God’s infinite power and His divine nature. Science says we are from monkeys and not made from dust. I rather be dust than some upgraded monkey. Which is why I DETEST Natural Law because we as Man are fallen and in need of a savior, not a savior through science. It was written the Lord can do all things. He can create time, bend time, break time, and destroy time, and stop time. Science should solute God’s Power and Perfection.

I think you have an issue understanding the definition of the scientific method. If science just repeats what X random religion says without empirical evidence then it is the same as that X random religion and is no longer science as defined. Empirical observations are not dependent on your religious views unless your religion says that your opinion shapes the world. Science doesn't denounce any divine nature or any particular deity. It simply cannot observe it. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence nor does a non affirmation statement mean affirmation of nonexistence.

79 posted on 06/20/2007 1:57:13 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
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!

Did you miss this part of the article:
It may end later," Newton writes, "but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophecies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

80 posted on 06/20/2007 1:58:50 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Nope. I have faith that the evidence (literary, video docmentary, etc) is valid. Even having seen it, however, proves only that I saw something I believed was Antarctica. The rabbit hole goes deep, if you think of the implications of what we have actually proved to ourselves.

“Do you believe you exist?”

For all either of us know, we could be conversing with a computer program, not another human being. If you think about it, we are. :-)

You really like Descartes don't you? This reminds me of his work talking about a personal demon.

81 posted on 06/20/2007 2:06:28 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Reckon why Evolution built into man the need to believe in something greater than himself? I sure the answer can easily be explained away, but the Scripture says that "God has set eternity in the hearts of men".

Evolution only says that a creature will evolve so that its offspring survive in the environment. Everything else is a side effect. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says that a recently evolved creature is a higher being than something that its precursor. You need to stop thinking of evolution as design. It isn't. It is simply environmental adaptation.

82 posted on 06/20/2007 2:13:17 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: ontap

>>They call it spontaneous generation I believe, and it is put forth along with evolution as a scientific possibility but like evolution the theory part of it always gets lost and it is presented as fact.<<

Hmm they shouldn’t present the origin of first life as certain because it is not certain.There shouldn’t be anything certain about first origin in school curriculum.

The development of that life from simple to complex and from similar to diverse, however, is quite certain.

*Disclaimer, yes I know that even things that are certain, like gravity and evolution are still theories.


83 posted on 06/20/2007 2:17:16 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

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

There's a fairly easy one, but it would get me in Imus-style trouble.

84 posted on 06/20/2007 2:44:26 PM PDT by Erasmus (My simplifying explanation had the disconcerting side effect of making the subject incomprehensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
You miss the point. It is exactly because he was so precise that he postulated multiple dates.

Are any of his possible dates in the next 6 months? I've got some vacation time I need to use up.

85 posted on 06/20/2007 2:49:23 PM PDT by GunRunner (Come on Fred, how long are you going to wait?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex
but also FAITH, that the Gumment wouldnt lie about that,

There were far to many people, scientist and the like to be involved in some type of government hoax....please don't tell me you're part of the crowd that actually thinks there's some remote possibility that the moon walk was staged!???!!

86 posted on 06/20/2007 3:40:55 PM PDT by Taggart_D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Oh, for heaven's sake....it took hundreds of scientist to put a man into space....so what you're saying is that scientist could all be operating in total ignorance?????

My good man, I do not have "faith" man walked on the moon....I have "faith" that the hundreds of scientist involved in the project were not stupid mindless robots incapable of verifying that what they did actually worked.

Maybe its time you start challenging me to see if the holocaust actually took place...EH???

87 posted on 06/20/2007 3:53:20 PM PDT by Taggart_D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

there’s no doubt that Isaac Newton would be a Creationist today.


88 posted on 06/20/2007 3:54:17 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Hmm they shouldn’t present the origin of first life as certain because it is not certain.There shouldn’t be anything certain about first origin in school curriculum

They shouldn’t be presenting any of it as certain. It should be presented as what it is a theory.

The development of that life from simple to complex and from similar to diverse, however, is quite certain.

How could it be any other way, if it were the other way around we would be amoebas.

*Disclaimer, yes I know that even things that are certain, like gravity and evolution are still theories.

This is the only admission I ask for They are theories.It’s very hard for some on this forum to admit it. Their arguments are mostly directed to attacks on people of other opinions instead of offering proof, which they never seem to have other than the offering of other like thinking scientist.


89 posted on 06/20/2007 4:23:36 PM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: balch3

I do doubt it.


90 posted on 06/20/2007 5:08:33 PM PDT by Christopher Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
[I]f most of the great scientists of the past five hundred years have been practicing Christians, what can we make of the insistence by contemporary atheist writers ... that there has been an unceasing war between science and religion?

Galileo's case suggests an answer to that question. Galileo was a thoroughly committed Catholic; that did not save him from being pronounced - for his views on physics - to be vehemently suspected of heresy. And are not people today denounced as enemies of religion for holding the wrong opinions on biology?

D'Souza suggests that we ask Newton whether religion and science are compatible. I would rather ask D'Souza himself, for only he can say whether his religion is compatible with science. It is not compatible, if it commands him to believe or disbelieve something that can be tested by the methods of science, without regard for the result of that test.

91 posted on 06/20/2007 5:50:06 PM PDT by Christopher Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taggart_D

Not really, but I have faith.
barbra ann


92 posted on 06/20/2007 5:52:45 PM PDT by barb-tex (Why replace the IRS with anything?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Taggart_D
Oh, for heaven's sake....it took hundreds of scientist to put a man into space....so what you're saying is that scientist could all be operating in total ignorance????? My good man, I do not have "faith" man walked on the moon....I have "faith" that the hundreds of scientist involved in the project were not stupid mindless robots incapable of verifying that what they did actually worked. Maybe its time you start challenging me to see if the holocaust actually took place...EH???

No need to get hostile, EH??

You simply restated my argument, that the very people who crucified Christ, and his own followers, saw him resurrected, in the flesh, and became his firmest believers. Why, 10 of the original 11 disciples died a martyrs death stating this very historical fact, and refusing to deny it. The burden is on us to accept or deny their testimony. Since one can not "prove" they were right or wrong, we must take either position on faith.

Since you are so willing to accept the testimony of a bunch of engineers (non of who were threatened with death, to the best of my knowledge), why would you deny the testimony of men who were in a position to KNOW if what they believed were fact or not, especially under the pain of death?

93 posted on 06/20/2007 6:25:40 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

*Are science and religion compatible?*

If by ‘religion’, ‘organized religion’ is meant, then probably no (because the Bible conflicts with much of what modern science teaches).

But certainly a person who does not identify as a member of an organized religion, for example, can believe in God and evolution at the same time, right?


94 posted on 06/20/2007 6:26:39 PM PDT by idealsociety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: burzum
Evolution only says that a creature will evolve so that its offspring survive in the environment. Everything else is a side effect. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says that a recently evolved creature is a higher being than something that its precursor. You need to stop thinking of evolution as design. It isn't. It is simply environmental adaptation.

I don't think evolution is capable of anything, so this is not my problem. Evolutionary biologist are the ones who are constatly trying to explain every obvious sign of design as a result of random genetic mutation (the only plausible mechanism), that provided advantage to the SINGLE ORGANISM that had the mutation, which allowed it to survive where others died (natural selection), and thus pass on it's unique genetic material to the rest of the population. We ain't talkin' just bacteria in a petri dish here, neither!

You are correct, evolution did not design anything, it just explain the gradual accumulation of complexity over an enormous amount of time, thus climbing Mount Improbable up the opposite gradually sloping side. Thus, all of the beatiful complexity in the world is just the result of a bunch of accidental errors in the transmission of the genetic code, which incidentally, is untestable. This is REAL faith!

95 posted on 06/20/2007 6:43:37 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me



Another brilliant creationist, Dr. Raymond Damadian, was recently honored for furthering the technology of the MRI that he helped invent, into an upright form where doctors can diagnose a problem much more quickly.
96 posted on 06/20/2007 7:18:51 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ontap

It’s easy.

On one side of the argument is the group that makes the statement and demands that you *disprove* it. But when you make a statement, the onus is on you to provide evidence to *prove* it. So one side is always being required to do the leg work.

Hmmmmm....


97 posted on 06/20/2007 7:52:27 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
You are correct, evolution did not design anything, it just explain the gradual accumulation of complexity over an enormous amount of time, thus climbing Mount Improbable up the opposite gradually sloping side. Thus, all of the beatiful complexity in the world is just the result of a bunch of accidental errors in the transmission of the genetic code, which incidentally, is untestable. This is REAL faith!

Untestable? Hardly. All you have to do is look at the recent evolution of bacteria that are highly resistant to antibiotics to know that a life-form evolves so that its offspring will survive. Or look at the changes in the flu each year. And beauty? Didn't I just finish telling you that evolution does not have a conscious design process?

98 posted on 06/20/2007 7:59:40 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

There is much in the creation account in the Bible that fits with current scientific thinking, along with comments made in other books of the Bible concerning scientific matters.

The main issues that seem to be the hot buttons are the unique creation of life as opposed to evolution, and the age of the earth. Even Answers in Genesis doesn’t deny that natural selection and variation within species doesn’t happen. They have a different explanation of *kinds* and how animals have changed from them but every time I link someone to the article, I NEVER get a response.

As far as it being *mythology*, on what basis have arrived at that conclusion?


99 posted on 06/20/2007 8:07:02 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The main issues that seem to be the hot buttons are the unique creation of life as opposed to evolution, and the age of the earth.

Don't forget the "global flood" (for which there is no scientific evidence).

To be more accurate, you should have separated "the unique creation of life" and "evolution."

The evolution of life (speciation) can take place in the exact same way whether life arises from:

I don't know why you and other creationists keep joining the origins problem, which is poorly understood scientifically, with evolution, which is pretty well understood scientifically.

Are you unaware that they are different fields of study, or are you just casting up gigantic strawmen?

100 posted on 06/20/2007 8:29:11 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-157 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson