Posted on 05/29/2009 11:20:59 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Newton never was exposed to contrary data. Hard to accept Darwin’s theory when Darwin had not formulated it.
Nor would the explanation of the realities the govern heredity and descent with modification have, to Newton, removed God as their creator; any more than the explanation of the realities the govern planetary motion removed God as their creator.
Newton denied the Trinity, this is a matter of historic record. Do you think this is a heretical view?
Just saying it doesn’t make it so, Allmendream. I repeat, there is not a shred of evidence that would suggest that Darwin’s materialist creation myth is true, and there is ever-increasing evidence against it. But hey, like I said, you are entitled to your unfounded Evo-beliefs, just don’t pretend they accord with Newton (or the Bible).
Still no explanation of any scientific theory that attempts to explain physical phenomena by appealing to supernatural forces.
Newton didn’t do it. Why wasn’t it “materialism” when Newton used physical causes to explain physical phenomena, but somehow it is when biologists use physical causes to explain physical phenomena?
==Newton never was exposed to contrary data. Hard to accept Darwin’s theory when Darwin had not formulated it.
I merely pointed out that he believed in biblical/young earth creation. It was you who said “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.’”
And yes, to deny the Trinity is clearly heretical.
Newton used science to explain how gravity behaves, and he used the Bible to say that gravity (and indeed all physical laws) were created by God. Why you can’t distinguish between the two is beyond me.
Why you cannot see that this is exactly the same position as Newton took with respect to gravity is not at all beyond me, because I know the depths of self enforced ignorance you will subject yourself to.
Or are you going to pretend that Newton never denied the Trinity?
Have you thought of a scientific theory that attempts to explain physical phenomena by appealing to supernatural forces yet?
Why is it “materialism” when biologists appeal to physical causes to explain physical phenomena, but not when Newton did the same?
Newton did not believe in evolution, he believed in biblical/young earth creation. How you could twist his belief in biblical creation into agreeing with Darwin’s atheist creation myth is beyond me.
I have read and heard it said that he may have denied the Trinity, but I have never had it conclusively proved to me.
==Have you thought of a scientific theory that attempts to explain physical phenomena by appealing to supernatural forces yet?
Every law that governs the Universe was created by God’s Word, and are therefore of supernatural origin. The only reason science can study them is because God created them to be regular. Although, even God’s regular laws are occasionall interrupted by his irregular laws, otherwise known as miracles (such as when Jesus raised from the dead).
Are you delusional?
I said Newton was in agreement with me over the basic philosophy that deriving a physical cause for something doesn’t remove God as its creator.
I never attempted to claim Newton agreed with Darwin, and I would have to be as ignorant as you to attempt such, as Newton lived long before Darwin was even born.
For the reality impaired....
Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727)
Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882)
So, have you thought of a scientific theory that appeals to supernatural causation to explain physical phenomena yet?
Why is it “materialism” when biologists explain physical phenomena by appeal to physical causes, yet somehow not when Newton does it?
Supernatural origin explains nothing as we both believe that the entirety of creation was created by God. I said supernatural FORCES not origins anyway.
So you think Newton appealed to supernatural forces in explaining his theory because gravity is a supernatural force?
Well then I suppose evolution through natural selection of genetic variation would also be a supernatural force, as you are attempting to define it, as God originated that system as well.
So Newton’s theory wasn’t “materialist” because gravity IS a supernatural force? Is that what you are claiming?
Why then isn’t evolution also afforded the mantle of a supernatural force, but is instead called by you “materialistic”?
All are theories.
Bingo and all liberal theories to boot.
Many evos hate to be reminded their allies are liberal. People like Hissy-fit Matthews spewing spittle all over the camera for all to see.
No, but I’m starting to think you are delusional. It was you who incorrectly paraphrased Newton by saying: “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...”
Not only did Newton live before Darwin was even born, as a YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST he would have despised Darwin’s atheist creation myth.
Are you suggesting that homosexuality doesn't exist?
All the forces are supernatural too. They were created by God to behave in regular ways, and thus modern science has mistakenly called them “natural” or “materialist.”
Nobody has seen a talking snake tempt a woman to eat an apple, either.
Unlike the effects of gravity, which can be empirically observed, measured, even personally experienced, evolution relies on conjectures about what may have, could have, might have, probably have, happened.
Everybody has watched an object fall to the ground.
Nobody has seen a shrew turn into a bat.
In any event, Evolutionism and Creationism are both theories employed to explain the same evidence based on different world views.
One world view is the materialistic one employed by such bright bulbs as Marx, the other is the Deistic one, employed by the enlghtened men who wrote our Constitution.
Ultimately, the discussion of origins is not a scientific one but a philosophical, even a metaphysical one. None of the processes were observed, measured, or experienced first hand by any human. It is not necessary to believe in evolution in order to advance science.
I work as an engineer, and evolution has no bearing on my work. In fact, from my experience, if so much as one bit were to randomly mutate, the application crashes or hangs when that bit of information is relied upon to make a decision. So much for random mutations.
Any “self-modifying” code I’ve seen was DESIGNED to do that, based upon INTELLIGENCE that was originally PROGRAMMED into the system.
Even if science were to be able to “create” life in the laboratory, imagine how ridiculous it would be for a scientist to stand in front of the news cameras saying, “By the diligent efforts of thousands of scientists around the world, investing millions of man-hours of painstaking work, using billions of dollars of the latest laboratory equipment, we have produced this primitive life form, demonstrating once and for all that no intelligence is necessary to create life.”
Given the endless frauds in evolutionism, e.g. Haekel, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, Ntional Geographic’s “Dino Bird”, etc, and the fact that no explanation exists for organs that would be “vestigial” until wholly functioning, e.g. the eye, I would say that Intelligent Design is the more intelligent explanation.
However, if you want to believe...
* Everything came from nowhere out of nothing for no apparent reason.
* Life is just a curious side effect of an unknowing, uncaring cosmos.
* A man is a dog is a bear is a pig.
* When you die you are just so much compost.
* Ergo, the best you can hope for is a life of self-gratification and a painless extinction.
... I certainly won’t try to stop you.
Just don’t expect me to gladly furnish moneys by the threat of lethal force to propagate your silly, even dangerous, notions.
Let’s get back on track, re. the Texas education thing.
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 people to believe about him, they would openly vilify him.
So was Galileo. And yet when he dared to oppose the Biblical Creationist belief that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the other way around, he was attacked by the Church and ordered imprisoned. So what are you going to do the the evolutionists when youtake control?
Truly delusional.
Paraphrase is not a quote, thus it would be impossible to incorrectly paraphrase Newton unless I altered the meaning of his statement. I took what Newton said about gravity and applying THE EXACT SAME SENTIMENT to Evolution.
Just as Newton did not suppose that finding a physical cause of planetary formation and movement removed God as the originator and creator of those planets, I do not suppose that finding a physical cause of species descending with modification removes God as the originator and creator of all living things.
As a scientist Newton would have embraced and applauded Darwin’s scientific theory that is so useful in explaining and predicting data, neither is there any reason to suppose he would find that discovering the mechanism of how life changes removes God as their creator any more than discovering the mechanism of planetary movement removes God as their creator.
>> Nobody has seen a shrew turn into a bat.
>
> Nobody has seen a talking snake tempt a woman to eat an
> apple, either.
Good, then you agree that the evolution story is just another origin story.
We should be free to choose whichever of these origin stories best fits our worldview.
You are free to choose to believe that:
* Everything came from nowhere out of nothing for no apparent reason.
* Life is just a curious side effect of an unknowing, uncaring cosmos.
* A man is a dog is a bear is a pig.
* When you die you are just so much compost.
* Ergo, the best you can hope for is a life of self-gratification and a painless extinction.
... I certainly won’t try to stop you.
Just don’t expect me to gladly furnish moneys by the threat of lethal force to propagate your silly, even dangerous, notions.
Please forgive me if you notice I’m repeating myself. I don’t know how much of this thread you have read.
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.