Every religion incorporates a myth of how the world was created. This illustration depicts the creation myths of Hindism, Navaho, Aztec, Egyptian, Christian, Aboriginal, Jewish and Islam.
Posted on 05/29/2009 11:20:59 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
That's what I mean about it is not smart to get pushy with Texans.
According to Al Gore, non-scientist, there is “consensus”.
And I find it odd that with millions of human births around the world we cannot monitor the process and determine WHEN life begins but we can establish HOW life began millions of years ago.
A scientist will tell you that from a scientific perspoective life began millions of years ago and is a continuous process with parts dying off and parts living on. Any other definitions is a matter for Lawyers, Politicians and Philosophers not scientists.
==As an alchemist Newton was a quack.
Many of the practices and discoveries pioneered by alchemists led to modern chemistry. And as it turns out, the Alchemists like Newton were onto something, as lead really can be turned into gold.
Duh! And if you don’t believe that or the consensus - shut UP! /Sarc (kinda)
The “kinda” wasn’t at YOU it was at the sarcasm tag, since that is how most of the evolutionists would actually like to handle your question!
Every religion incorporates a myth of how the world was created. This illustration depicts the creation myths of Hindism, Navaho, Aztec, Egyptian, Christian, Aboriginal, Jewish and Islam.
==As a theologian Newton was a heretic.
It’s possible, but everything I’m reading says “he was almost certainly this” or “almost certainly that.” That suggests nobody knows for sure. So until I see something definitive, I will give Newton the benefit of the doubt. Having said that, everything I have read about him suggests he believed in the biblical account of creation.
==And yet it was only Newton’s scientific theories that posited natural causes for natural phenomena that accomplished anything.
‘Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton’s best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”
...
‘Thus, the ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia “I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity”.[46] He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: “Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice”.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_views
> Guess, you have no problem wanting to for us to fund your
> THEORY as fact
It is your theory that is funded as fact.
All we want is the following.
1. The theory of evolution would be presented as just that, a theory, and for the weaknesses therein, discovered and reported in scientific journals acceptable even to most evolutionists, to be openly presented.
2. The theory of creationism, or intelligent design, would also be presented as an alternative explanation.
After all, both of these theories are interpretations of the same evidence but based on different world views. All we asking for is equal time.
But we understand that might be too much for the poor evolutionists to bear after the holes in their theory and all the frauds employed since its inception to perpetuate it are exposed.
What I would like even more is for the government to stop taxing me to pay for the union-run indoctrination collectives they call “Public Schools”.
Thomas Jefferson, the misunderstood, misinterpreted darling of the Left, once said that to “compel a man to furnish moneys for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is tyranny and a great sin.”
If the Left were unable to torture this man’s words into what they want to believe about him, they would openly vilify him.
Newton was most certainly a heretic who denied the Trinity of God.
I agree with Newton and would paraphrase him to say...
‘Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation explains the history of living species on earth, but it cannot explain what set reality and life in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.’
Notice please that the ONLY scientific contribution of Newton was through his materialistic theory that explained how natural forces could accomplish celestial movement.
Nobody has ever accomplished anything scientifically assuming direct supernatural causation of natural phenomena.
You don’t agree with Newton. Newton believed in the biblical creation account in Genesis. You believe that random processes plus survival somehow created super-sophisticated bio-nano machines that merely give off the illusion of having been designed for a purpose.
==Newton was most certainly a heretic who denied the Trinity of God.
Like I said, I have never read anything that proves that Newton was a heretic. I have heard people say he was “almost certainly” a heretic, but I have never seen any conclusive proof of the same.
Newton was a heretic. I wouldn't go around claiming him as an authority on the Bible.
I agree with Newton on the passage you quoted completely in that discovering the PHYSICAL realities that govern planetary motion in no way removes God as the creator of that reality and the creator of the planets.
Just as discovering the PHYSCIAL realities that govern descent with modification of living systems in no way removes God as the creator of those living systems.
See, I agree with Newton. It is you who would condemn him for reliance upon “materialism” in his scientific theories; yes how DARE he rely upon physical causes to explain physical phenomena.
Or is it only “materialism” when a biologist does it?
Is denial of the Trinity nature of God a heresy GGG?
If so then Newton was a heretic.
Unless you are so ignorant that you will attempt to deny that Newton rejected the notion of the Trinity.
Too bad there isn’t a shred of evidence for common descent, and mountains of evidence against the same. But you are free to believe what you want to believe. Just don’t try and pretend that your unfounded Evo-beliefs accord with Newton.
There are mountains of evidence for common descent in any science library you go into (not that you ever would).
And my philosophy on how physical causes as explanation for physical phenomena in no way removes God as their originator is EXACTLY in accord with Newton.
So have you thought of a scientific theory yet that attempts to explain physical phenomena by appeal to supernatural forces?
Why is it “materialism” when biologists do it but not Newton? What is the difference?
Like I said, I have heard people go as far as to say Newton almost certainly was an heritic, but I have never seen any primary evidence of the same. If you have any evidence that will conclusively resolve this issue, I would be more than happy to read it. But regardless, Newton believed that the Genesis (read: YEC) account of creation was accurate.
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.