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

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

[ontap]

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.

[SirLinksalot]

Newton also interprets biblical prophecy to say that the Jews would return to the holy land before the world ends.

And that was at a time when most Jews were dispersed elsewhere... there seems to be more to his work than meets the eye... his interpretations were spot on 300 years later.

[gondramB]

>>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.

[Wombat101]

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.

[ontap]

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.

[Wombat101]

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.

[ontap]

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.

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.

[gondramB]

>>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.

[jimmyray]

Also, it does not require faith to know that Armstrong and Aldrin were the first men on the moon....it requires a TV.

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.

[Old Professer]

2060 coincides with the prophet Gore’s predictions; that’s scary!

[SunkenCiv]

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)

[newguy357]

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.

[SunkenCiv]

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

[Cacique]

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

[ontap]

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.

[RightWhale]

Is this anywhere near the topic of this thread?

[Cacique]

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

[AnotherUnixGeek]

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.

[ontap]

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.

[gondramB]

>>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.