wandeljw wrote:farmerman wrote:HEy only 130 posts to go to the big 10K. Someone should go back and summarize
Quick Summary:
"The world will end before people agree on how it began."
This one deserves the prize.
rlQuote: Had they been alive today, they and their beliefs would most accurately be described as 'creationist'. The term simply wasn't used then, but that's what they believed.
You assume that NEwton, the greatest mind of his time, ifalive today , would think exactly the same as he did over 300 years ago. Somehow I dont buy that logic. Its as if knowledge stops
Quote:However, you would have to agree that Newton was a 'creationist' even if the term itself was not used at the time.
. . Newton was merely a man trapped in his time, youre trying to limit his intellect by imlying that he weighed the distinctions between Creation and evolution and consciously selected Creation. I think that Newton was much smarter than that.
He gave us the LAw of Universal gravitation but he had no idea how to measure the gravitational constant. We had to wait another 50 years for Cavendish.
You cannot ascribe choices made by people who werent fully aware of all the options later available. Thats just silly. Like the cavemen saying "when we gonna get cable TV?"
Right! Science does not "care" who did the science, or what their personal beliefs were. Science transcends the individual.
Legitimate science could be performed by a Martian on Uranus eating a jelly donut with a religious belief in the tooth fairy.
That's just nonsense . . .
. . . if he believed in the tooth fairy, why would he be eating a jelly doughnut?
So when his teeth fell out he could collect the quarters left under his pillow by the tooth fairy silly.
If one has any adult teeth falling out, you could blame it on God but the baby teeth falling out is a product of evolution.
It was the "on Uranus" that bothered me.
I usually stand with my back to the wall when I hear anything remotely resembling that or even connected to it through a maze of literary allusions.
farmerman wrote:rlQuote: Had they been alive today, they and their beliefs would most accurately be described as 'creationist'. The term simply wasn't used then, but that's what they believed.
You assume that NEwton, the greatest mind of his time, ifalive today , would think exactly the same as he did over 300 years ago. Somehow I dont buy that logic. Its as if knowledge stops
Quote:However, you would have to agree that Newton was a 'creationist' even if the term itself was not used at the time.
. . Newton was merely a man trapped in his time, youre trying to limit his intellect by imlying that he weighed the distinctions between Creation and evolution and consciously selected Creation. I think that Newton was much smarter than that.
He gave us the LAw of Universal gravitation but he had no idea how to measure the gravitational constant. We had to wait another 50 years for Cavendish.
You cannot ascribe choices made by people who werent fully aware of all the options later available. Thats just silly. Like the cavemen saying "when we gonna get cable TV?"
No, I only said that the science he did, he did using a creationist viewpoint. Something you seem to assume no good scientist would do.
The laws of science didn't suddenly change when Darwin was published. Men's perception of them did.
But if science done with a creationist viewpoint is invalid, then Newton should have had no significant impact on science.
The same could be said of many of the great scientific pioneers. How could they have had the impact they did, since they labored (supposedly) under a false assumption that should have led them to false conclusions?
rl, where in the works of such as Newton or Gallileo or Archimedes is a god a requisite factor, a consideration without which the work would be invalid?
It is irrelative what viewpoint a scientist holds. It can be done by a Buddhist on Uranus just as well as a fundamentalist Christian on the dark side of the moon.
rl will try tomainatain that POV , even though the distinction of "Creationist orEvolutionist" was not even valid until a point in history.
Im not going to try to argue this point because it gets into a realm of silliness for which I have np patience or interest.
The law of universal gravitation is value neutral.
I still challenge you to name me one discovery or concept in science that was developed through Creationist ideas. I can understand why you avoid this question
The actual casting of doubt on a Biblical interpretation of the world had freed much of science .For this, 1867 stands as a timeline when the world entered the modern age. Bishop Wilberforce himself, when debating Huxley about Darwins theory during this time , verbalized the fear that Evolution would, if allowed to persist as an accepted theory, would be nothingless than a heresy.
Using Huxleys own family tragedies as a point of attack, Wilberforce and his partner of convenience, Chalres Kingsley tried to exact an admission from Huxley that "were he to continue this belief in man 's descent from crude apes, it would degrade man to the very status of ape, and would take away mans immortal soul and the assurance of a reunion in the beyond"
Huxley,replied to Wilberforce and Kingsley in a "letter of consolation" at the death of Huxleys son. Huxley declined the consolation and , in a damn good letter in English lit, Huxley pretty much described the zero=point on the time line that really began the age where science was nolonger subserviant to theology in any fashion. It was at this point that the term "Creationism" had the beginnings of a meaning in history. All the rest, including Spensers apologias on behalf of Darwin, and Turners " Natural History of the Flood" and Morrises "Flood Geology" against it, were the death throes of religious based science and an ascending age when science was freed from any holds by theological dogma.
To ascribe the term Creationist or evolutionist to scientists that lived and worked before this time zero, Id have to smile and say that your just being typically Creationist in your thinking process. I can see how you need things to be simple and ordered by your religious beliefs, but often the facts just cant be shoehorned into that kind of thinking.
A creationist perspective on the Laws of Motion? The mind boggles. What is that supposed to be, rl? "Things move because God blows on them"? I really, REALLY doubt Isaac Newton had any such thing in mind.
username wrote:A creationist perspective on the Laws of Motion? The mind boggles. What is that supposed to be, rl? "Things move because God blows on them"? I really, REALLY doubt Isaac Newton had any such thing in mind.
Isaac Newton believed in God as a Law Maker.
Darwin came up with Evolution with that same idea in mind.
I make a clear distinction between Guided Evolution, where God laid down the law and let everything be created through the Natural Laws without interference and Intelligent Design, which stated that God must have designed things.
Isaac Newton, if he knew about Evolution, would have believed in Guided Evolution, not Creationism and not Intelligent Design.
Newton may have accepted ID for a while. However, I think he would have pursued his own inquiry into what ID actualy means. It is the application of the irreducible complexity point to be where data "runs out" and some kind of belief must step in. At that point, I think Newton would have said. "Hey wait, why cant we investigate the very point of iireducible complexity and, rather than making a religion out of it, see whether we cant push it back even farther. "
ID ers, who profess being evolutionists (like Behe) all seem to look for this point beyond which they say "an Intelligence takes over". Yet, when they actually look at the nature of irreducibility (even if it were true) all trails are lost because of some profound complexity that is based upon "jury rigging" not "design" at all. EG
Why are there 24 or 26 different enzymes involved in the clotting of hemoglobin, and why, even if we remove 2 or 3 (as is the case in some marine animals) we still get clotting? Is a design redundancy being built in? or is this just an example of try try again?
Why is the development of marine echolocation concommitent with the development of 2 or 3 unrelated caputal structures in early "terracetans"
ad later species like ambulocaetus or zueglodonts. Howcum these features were clearly modifications of existing facial dinguses on the fossil animals?
Why does the pattern of the development of the eyespot and eyes follow about 5 diferent models? all serving the same purpose but all only sharing one thing , a specific set of 2 genes.
Wings of insects cearly show from the fossil record that , for millions of years, insects with wingstubs couldnt fly but the wings were there for something else, maybe ohhh, cooling? (bees do it)
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:username wrote:A creationist perspective on the Laws of Motion? The mind boggles. What is that supposed to be, rl? "Things move because God blows on them"? I really, REALLY doubt Isaac Newton had any such thing in mind.
Isaac Newton believed in God as a Law Maker.
Darwin came up with Evolution with that same idea in mind.
I make a clear distinction between Guided Evolution, where God laid down the law and let everything be created through the Natural Laws without interference and Intelligent Design, which stated that God must have designed things.
Isaac Newton, if he knew about Evolution, would have believed in Guided Evolution, not Creationism and not Intelligent Design.
God created, made and formed the earth...
God did not only create the heavens and the earth then step back and watch...
There were also things that God "made," "formed" and created (ID) even after the initial creation. Thus there are instances (in the scriptures) of God creating things AFTER the beginning. One of those instances was the creation of the image of God in humans.
According to the Bible every time a person is born again of holy spirit they become a "new creation".
People accept this spirit by choice but God is still there in evolution "creating" the spirit of change...
And you have some evidence for this airy fantasy, Rex?
Created being the same as made or formed. Tinkering may be another story. This fantasy methaphysical being is tinkier with the Earth like Jay Leno with his car collection. Only Jay Leno is doing a much superior job. Jay Leno = God
username wrote:And you have some evidence for this airy fantasy, Rex?
Yea, a two thousand year old book and the "manifested evidence" of the holy spirit in me and those who believe...
For instance your inability to see the holy spirit is simply further proof and a witness of the spirit, for one must obtain spirit to see spirit.
In other words, no proof.
which is to say, airy fantasy.
