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.
Because you proclaim to be the great scientific thinker lowering himself down to the level of us bible thumpers, when the reality is you have no more proof of what you believe than we do. You’re taking it on faith. Just not a faith in the religious sense.
>>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.<<
There were 700 years of inquisitions - saying or reading the wrong thing could bring imprisonment, torture or death.
There are thousands and thousands of cases of Church persecution. As Europe was decrying slavery in America, the Church still forcibly kept Jews in ghettos with few rights.
This guy is nuts if he thinks he going to show that science was never a target. He’d have a much better case to show it was only one target among many and not the most persecuted. That was reserved for women who showed independence but heresy in all forms was pursued with vicious, unChristian fervor.
Ummm, no. I’m a historian, and I don’t put myself into the ranks of the “Great Thinkers”, just someone with slightly more sense than the average Irish Setter.
And I certainly have far more proof for my assertions than you do for yours. The only differnce is that you have convinced yourself that no proof is necessary. Fine by me, it’s your right and I don’t begrudge it to you.
That doesn’t mean I have to believe it, nor does it mean that when you pass a comment accusing me (or someone else with beliefs similar to mine) of making logical errors without recognizing your own, then you deserve a response.
I would say that evil men have been using religion to justify their evil many thousands of years before Christianity so the fact one can find examples does little to advance the argument. One does not have to advance the religious argument at all to cast doubt on evolution, there are plenty of scientific arguments to dispel it.
Excuse me. Fingers can’t keep up with the brain today. That should have read:
“...nor does it mean that when you pass a comment accusing me (or someone else with beliefs similar to mine) of making logical errors without recognizing your own, that you shouldn’t deserve a response....”
Apologies.
The only differnce is that you have convinced yourself that no proof is necessary. Fine by me, its your right and I dont begrudge it to you.
I could say the same about you! By the way I’m a Social Studies teacher so we share one thing. And I’m perfectly willing to have a discussion on the subject and leave religion out of it.
>>I would say that evil men have been using religion to justify their evil many thousands of years before Christianity so the fact one can find examples does little to advance the argument. <<
Yes.
>>One does not have to advance the religious argument at all to cast doubt on evolution, there are plenty of scientific arguments to dispel it.<<
Hmmm. Not from the level of science I am able to understand as a physicist. All the evidence I can see shows that the oldest life is simple and similar. As the remains get more recent they get more complex and more diverse. Evolution seems like a good name for that.
Perhaps people who make genetics or biology as their life’s study can see more.
By the same level of proof, we have been to a Galaxy far far away, to a black hole, and to mars several times. :-)
You have faith that we went to the moon, because you trust the authorities that claim so, you trust the video you've seen is real, and you trust the account of the 'eyewitnesses'. You believed the evidence is reliable and true, thus you believe that we went (so do I). The point is, most things we believe, we have never proven to ourselves, we take them on faith, trusting the evidence we have been provided is reliable.
2060 coincides with the prophet Gore’s predictions; that’s scary!
Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution.Newton Papers Reveal Apocalypse CalculationThree-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.
by Matti Friedman
AP
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)
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
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.
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.
Is this anywhere near the topic of this thread?
OOPS, I posted the above on the wrong thread, SORRY FOLKS! I menat to just bump the thread up.
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.
>>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 theres 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.
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.