You know how little sense that makes? There are trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe, with billions of different combinations for distance, size, elemental make-up, etc. it would only make sense that at least ONE of these would fit the standards for life, and the fact that we are alive and observing that, proves it.
@twostepRMX - As you point out, the vastness of the universe is beyond human comprehension. This does not argue against God; on the contrary, it is a deafening declaration FOR God. I don't know anyone, theist or otherwise, who proclaims that Earth is the "one and only." But I do know this: If there are millions, or billions of Earth-like planets, this is no more or less astounding than the idea that there is only one. And we are faced with the awesome mystery of creation...
1) The title of this video is misleading and would imply a video about Newton's views on religion, not a video about Newton's contributions to science, followed by a quote
2) Newton's status as a prolific scientist does not make his religious viewpoints more credible, Newton also believed in alchemy, yet you don't make a video about why alchemy is real because Newton believed it
3) Universal Gravitation isn't even the correct model for describing gravity
@tapelegs 4)Newton was also coming from a time when only 6 planets were thought to exist. Based on the assumption of only 6 planets, the random occurrence of a life sustaining planet does seem impossible, but so much when you have the modern knowledge of hundreds of billions of billions of planets
5)Other famous scientists did not believe in a personal god, such as Einstein and Feynman, why not mention them as well, aren't you being one sided in only mentioning scientists that support your view?
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
Newton was a smart guy but this quote is pretty easy to dismiss today due to the fact that we know that there are billions of galaxies and solar systems which means that the chances of a planet "randomly" being in the perfect position relative to the sun or any other star is pretty high.
I am riding from MA-FL to promote an evangelism book
Buy the book at lulu.com (just type on search bar - Heleno Henzo)
Generated profits will go to evangelism fund
Help me spread the good news
“If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe betide me if I do not proclaim the gospel!” I Corinthians 9:16
(cont) This was at a time when an academic position required a commitment to join the church at a later date. Newton actually partitioned the king to be released from this commitment, and that was granted. If his religious views were to become known he would have been kicked out of Cambridge.
If his religious views are considered radical in that environment I wouldn't be using his words to try and prop up my argument.
@AussieAtheist1 Well according to All Atheist. Every person of science now and then are closet Atheist. Einstein was defiantly not an atheist. He hated when atheist try to put his comment out of context. He felt Atheism was close minded. Even Carl Sagan thought Atheism was stupid stance on the question.
@Tuber77 You contradict yourself. By your logic either Einstein was an atheist and a man of science, or he wasn't an atheist and hence not a person of science. Einstein was a soft form of deist, he commented on this many times. I don't know of any quote that implies what you are saying, I know of several that attack those who atribute theism to him. I could give you a whole list of famous scientists who were/are theists, it makes no difference. (cont)
@Tuber77 (cont) The source of information is unimportant, what matters is if the idea is supported by evidence. This is why Newtons theories WRT physics are still taught, yet his ideas on theology are barely known. (cont)
@Tuber77 From Einstein "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." 28 Sep 1949 to to Guy H. Raner Jr
@Tuber77 I understand what Einstien is saying, yet I don't accept his notion that atheism is the result of a crusading spirit. I don't have any personal issue with religion, my problem is with the attack on scientific knowledge and process through political means.
Newton actually had more written on theology than physics. It begs the question, why isn't Newtons theories on theology taught anywhere? The answer is quite simple, he believed that Christ wasn't divine, that the Catholic church was the anti-christ and that the end of the world could be determined based on the time at which it came into dominance. It was hidden from the world by his friends who didn't want this stuff becoming public after his death, in a sense protecting his reputation (cont)
Are you seeking truth? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" to open it. What it says will blow your mind.
You think repeating a logical fallacy will convince atheists that a god is real just because it came from newton? Newton's question is invalid because he assumes the only alternative to design is chance which is false.
The anthropic principle is founded on a philosophical argument. Philosophy, like science, changes, and in a hundred years or so, this antrhopic principle will either be true or false.
"Newton's question is invalid"
I'd call it more of a personal opinion. If only he were around, then you could argue with him. But to call his opinion a fallacy because of an argument that was not present at his time is a low blow.
@JohnSTEAM It's understandable why newton made a logically flawed argument but it's still flawed, and the anthropic principle is axiomatically true if the conditions are right. Think of it like a secret lottery where only the winner ever finds out it even happened. Thus only the winner of the lottery can even ponder the question "what are the odds i won that lottery," so it is with planets with intelligent life.
Science doesn't change randomly it converges on greater accuracy/understanding.
"Science doesn't change randomly it converges on greater accuracy/understanding."
I completely agree, but it is only provisional. I don't know if you are into philosophy or not, but what do you think of George Herbert Mead's cultural a priori? We grew up in this scientific world only to be shaped by it. This is how I see it. Science will be favored on empirical grounds until we reach a new paradigm that might completely change our world views.
@JohnEliasOnSTEAM To be honest I'm not familiar with his work. I took a fair amount of logic type philosophy back in college but very little about specific philosophers and their ideas.
Given how fantastically successful the scientific method is I can't ever see abandoning it, even a major paradigm shift would only add to the tools in the scientific method, and how would we evaluate the effectiveness of a new paradigm... the scientific method. No other system in human history has worked as well
I took a single Logic class, in which touched upon the basic structure of a logical argument (premise, conclusion, fallacies, etc), but other than that, I never really continued. In short, cultural a priori is the shaping of the self according to a specific culture, geographical placement, and interactions within that group that define the self (the Me and I). Basically I argued that science favours the current cultural paradigm we live in.
I also completely agree with you that science will only grow, and the scientific methodology will only help further advance our knowledge concerning science, whether the approach is by including a God or not, nothing can stop the growth of science. The way we study it is dependent on culture.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean what subjects we research or do you mean research methods or financial support of science. Could you expand on that?
All I'm asking from any atheist or scientist is can you admit that a Creator is a possibility? IT has not been scientifically disproven because Science is yet to discover the origins of all things. And therefore if God COULD be true, to investigate that possibility, even if it means doing so in an unscientific way (which is what science does with macro evolution anyway... take a leap of faith!!).
As a good believer, you shouldn't ask anyone of anything Acts1v8. God will either come to them when the time is right, if not at all. The one thing people hate is to have someone else telling them what to do. Regardless, we are all humans, we all want freedom in some way... Also, macroevolution is just the denial that a species can turn into another species. But it does argue the theory of evolution. For me, God is science.
@JohnEliasOnSTEAM You've obviously not read your Bible. I'm not good, I'm a sinner saved by grace. Secondly, The Bible is full of teachings, exhortations and commands to do and not do certain things for the benefit of the believer, to save people and for the glory of God. Eg 'Repent and be bapitized everyone of you' –– Peter speaking to thousands of people on the day of Pentecost. It is our job as Christians to tell the good news. 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel' –– Jesus
@Acts1v8 "can you admit that a Creator is a possibility?"
Sure, quote me: "It's possible, perhaps even likely that there was a creation event."
I'll give you one further:
"Even a creation event at the whimsical hands of a deity is possible."
So sure, investigate that possibility, but why do it in an unscientific way? Why would you want to investigate something without objective, verifiable evidence?
@mdppearce Sarcasm doesn't negate the obvious. If a building is built it needs a builder. While Science will continue to spend another hundred years in there fruitless search as to 'how and why' the Universe came into being, Christians will relax peacefully in the full knowledge that stars, mountains, bees and flowers are all the proof we need of a great cosmic, supernatural, miraculous Creator called Yahweh who designed a purposeful creation. Amazing Creator, amazing grace.
@EnceladusEmpire Thats the whole idea. If God is God and the creator of all things, then he is eternal, unchanging and has no beginning or end. He has always existed and always will. As the Bible says 'from everlasting to everlasting you are God'.
No. It basically says if conditions aren't beneficial to life's evolution somewhere. then it will not evolve there. Therefore, observers will only evolve on a planet suitable to that kind of life. No need for divine intervention. Isaac Newton lived in a time when it was thought that there were only six planets in the whole universe, so such a view was reasonable then. Now we know that there are many billions of planets in this galaxy alone.
@EnceladusEmpire Theory. And like I heard from an award winning scientist and physicist this morning on Radio 4, they still don't know how it all began, or in the words of Dawkins "Scientists don't yet know how it all began, they're working on it". I like how you say 'no need for divine intervention' as if the theory that conditions must be suitable for life to evolve, is again by chance. The point is, and Newton was right on this, the positioning of the planets cannot happen by chance.
The anthropic principle isn't a hypothesis; it is common sense. That explains Newton's fallacy perfectly.
And because science has still got a few gaps left to fill, that does not mean that one you can assume a god did it. Where is the evidence ?
There are so many permutations of arrangements of planets in the universe that it is a statistical certainty that a few billion would have earth-mass planets in the habitable zone. It is not blind luck; it is the aggregation of probability.
@EnceladusEmpire Neither does it assume that God didn't do it. The Bible says that made everything from nothing. (how long it took is irrelevant at this point). Science doesn't know and the mystery as to how everything came from nothing will baffle the greatest minds for centuries to come. Newton and dozens of other world changing scientists accepted (with little knowledge they had of the Universe) that God created it, the complexities of human biology were sufficient.
Newton believed that God made the universe BECAUSE of the little knowledge of the universe at that time. The complexities of human biology can be intricately explained in full by Darwin's principle of evolution, which has plenty of evidence, including many thousands of transitional forms; and no component of irreducible complexity has ever been found. Science doesn't know the mystery of creation, but we have made great progress. Religion makes no progress as it is not self-correcting.
@EnceladusEmpire Two clues to what you just said. Mystery and Creation. Both are attributes of God: Creator and a mystery (that is unfathomable to the human mind). The very fact you use the word creation is a logical result of a creator. 'Creations' by scientific standards cannot create themselves. They may adapt, change and evolve due to created circumstances around them, but they cannot by definition create themselves from nothing. It is a mathematical and physical impossibility.
@EnceladusEmpire //Newton believed that God made the universe BECAUSE of the little knowledge of the universe at that time.// Actually, Newton believed it primarily because of the authority of God's Word. The Bible was then and (for some conservative evangelicals) the authoritative word of God. Newton didn't need to work it out scientifically because of his small knowledge of the Universe, he already accepted from the very fact that it exists, that its there, that someone must have put it there.
I'll also add, I wasn't targeting you. I am a strong believer, and I do take into account the lively world around us. I do not completely disregard science... I see religion and science as one. I'm just looking for some good debating, but often things get out of hand.
@doubleKlutch YEs your right. god has nothing to do with the Bible, because you made 'it' up. Your god is as diverse and different from Joe Bloggs next door. Which is precisely why the God of the Bible, the creator God (that's what he calls himself) "I am the Lord your God, apart from me there is no other" –– Isaiah. Truth is not subjective. Don't be fooled by our post-modern society into thinking that there is no ultimate Truth. God is God, it's objective.
@Acts1v8 "because you made 'it' up." - Actually, I just agreed with your definition: "The universe exists, so some[thing] must have put it here." I don't make anything further up; beyond that, I know nothing else about god. I'll leave wild, subjective speculation to presumptuous, corrupt texts like the Bible.
I agree that truth is objective, and is true whether we believe it or not. I just don't think the Bible and it's 'God' are anything close to objective Truth.
@EnceladusEmpire //It is not blind luck; it is the aggregation of probability.//
You should look into the infinite monkey theorem. No matter how many monkeys you have. It is a scientific impossibility that they would, by probability, be able to create just one page of a Shakespeare writing, given infinite number of years. The point is, in order to create one page of Hamlet, you need an intelligent mind and writer and you're telling us that this Universe was the aggregation of probability!!!?
Also, you got the infinite monkey theorem wrong. Even a single monkey can write out in perfection every piece of literature ever written, given an infinite amount of years. The probability of doing so in a given timeframe is vanishingly small, but still finite. And a finite number multiplied by infinity is infinity. This theorem was created to show the remarkable mathematical properties of infinity.
@EnceladusEmpire The theorem has also been used to show atheists the improbability that the massively complex design of the Universe is chance or mathematical probability. There is one well known atheist that changes his view of God based on this theorem alone. With regard to human biology and transitional forms, there is not 1 single species to species transitional form to date. Macro evolution is still considered to be a theory and not yet fact by a large number of Scientists.
@Acts1v8 In science, a theory is stronger than a fact. The common use of the word 'theory' is not the same as the scientific use.
A fact is observed, and can be misleading if the observation is obscured.
A scientific theory is tested extensively, and takes obscurity into account .
That does not mean that a scientific theory can't be wrong, but to equate a scientific theory with a religious guess or assumption betrays your misunderstanding of the word 'theory'.
I had a similar argument with another on a different video. From an out of the box view, theories, laws, and facts are not completely proven. That does not make them neither right or wrong. Of course, we live in a scientific culture (look around you) so of course we favor empirical data more than we would religious claims. Thus, the evidence we do have that supports a theory, law, fact is more likely to be considered true.
@Acts1v8 This is a false analogy. The number of combinations of words in one page of Hamlet is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. A planet in the habitable zone of a star, however, is much more likely. Conservative estimates imply that 10% of stars have planets in the habitable zone. The Earth seems so perfect for life because life evolved to suit Earth's environment (and changed a lot of it in the process, like oxygenation of the atmosphere by cyanobacteria)
@EnceladusEmpire What is frustrating for the human mind is we can't work out why or how. Instead of accepting that we are the creation and the creator is boss, and therefore getting to know him, we spend fruitless years trying to work out the impossible...how everything we see now came from nothing and if it came from nothing, what was nothing?! Its beyond human comprehension and just because it may be uncomfortable to accept that an eternal God created it all, doesn't mean it can't be true.
@Acts1v8 "What is frustrating for the human mind is we can't work out why or how."
That is only frustrating for religious people.
I have no problem saying, 'I don't know yet,' or, 'I will not know in my lifetime.' This position of true humility is the only starting place for real knowledge. You can't fill a cup that is already full.
Newton's law of constant gravitation states that all masses experience an attraction to each other proportional to their to masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. If there is as much matter as there is in the universe, it is inevitable that at least one planet would experience a centripetal force that would provide an orbit of suitable radius (Kepler's Third Law) to harbour life. Earth is therefore not a question of chance but of overwhelming mathematical probability.
Actually the distance the earth is from the sun did happen by chance. The fact that there are billions of different planets at all different distances from stars means there must be a chance. Only if all planets were the same distance from stars would there be no chance.
@humpfry24 The point from Newton is, the positioning of the planets can't be by chance, therefore it has to be purposeful and designed. It doesn't matter that all stars and planets are different distances from one another, what matters is they are positioned so mathematically intricate in order to function, that they therefore must have had a designer.
lol its not a competition you know, just because some famous scientist thought so, doesnt mean its true. please also remember he doesnt get all the facts straight some 400 years ago. duhhh. if he knew there would be a man named Edwin Hubble to "discover" 50 billion galaxies and counting, i think he can calculate himself, how mind bogglingly easy it is for planets to get the right amount of distance,heat, composition, etc etc since theres practically unlimited number to throw the dice...
@aMag712 sounds so retarded because you dont have the brain capacity the measure it, about 50-100 billion galaxies, 400 billions stars in each, you must be pretty dumb to think earth is a pretty special and magical place.
again how dare you accusing people dont know statistic ? you are the moron who dont even understand how universe works. and thinks planet in habitable zone is very rare and earth is so special?? lol.
learn astronomy first before you talking out of your ass.
The one chance newton got made an big mistake with earlier human life wich found it before him that is matematic question if he had longer or reavilier question it would made H=001828 brastoshions so that nich is almost evrything
@DaBluedude100 you remind me of a friend who has the same ideals as you except he knows how to act more courteous then you that is, but do look more into history in your logic and you will realize that all of religions had some type of violent act portrayed in their religion even atheism has very violent acts as well and my belief is that atheism will try to bring an end to Christianity as i see it so could it be the other way around it has been done before as history shows us
Iasac Newton Born in 1643. nuff said he was bright but his statement was uttered in a time where a suggestion that there was no god was shunned and people were put to death.
Long story made short here. FUCK OFF CHRISTIANS STOP FIGHTING LOGIC AND SENSE. You are holding this planet back and you seek to destroy all of us. If you must be with god then go join him. Organize a mass suicide. Disembark from this sinful plain and go away.
And yet, when Napoleon was asked by Descartes to explain the universe mathematically, Napoleon said "why do i see no term for God in these equations?", Descartes said "I have no need for him".
I believe in God, but don't go using Science to prove His existence. That simply cannot be done, just as it cannot be used to prove he cannot. The point of "faith" is that you accept without proof and for faith to be important, God must remain unprovable!. You muppet!
Whether or NOT God exists makes NO practical difference. The degree of our Scientific understanding of Nature dose make a practical difference. It's the only thing that makes our lives BETTER then that of our Ancestors... not perpetuating Religious Dogma !!! GOD is about as useful and provides as many answers about the Universe as Santa Claus to Xmas !!! There are BETTER answers to both... how the Universe and the Xmas presents got here !!!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
False analogy. Human laws are invented in order to allow society to function. Natural laws are fundamental principles. Even if a god existed, and fine-tuned the universe, even It's alleged omnipotence cannot decide some of the laws, like the change in strength of gravity. Gravity follows the inverse square law, for example, precisely because the universe has three macro spatial dimensions.
And theists like to misuse the scientific use of the word 'theory'
In science, it does not mean 'guess' or 'hypothesis'!
In science a theory is a set of principles that can be used to accurately describe a particular aspect of nature. So, the theory of evolution, translated into non-scientific context, would be called the principle of evolution, because it is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, and describes beautifully the complexity of nature
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
NO REAL VIOLATION OF CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION in teaching both evolution and Intelligent Design because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
ATHEISTS ARE MORE EDUCATED is a red herring argument. What about all the educated that aren't atheists? Many times, the minority has been right in history. The atheists and evolutionists control the education system and certain arguments and evidences aren't presented or known, even among the educated. There are strong personal motives involved on the issue of origins. That is why it is important to present arguments and evidences of both sides to the public.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Any remotely smart person who can think for himself/herself will be an atheist. Only dumb asses who can't even graduate from high school still believe in God. In the scientific community, there are very few individuals who still hold on to creationism.
Human life is evoloved to fit the living conditions on Earth, if the sun or the earth were closer to or further from each other, we would merely be born diffrent beings who are able to live in those conditions that's it. I don't beileve this is Issac Newton quote, I beileve its christian propaganda. The same way they claimed to quote Einstein about god.
Newton was a genius who lived 300 years ago and was arrogant enough to claim that if there was something he couldn't explain, it had to have a supernatural explanation. But I'm happy to see that christians accept classical physics. It's a first step.
Pat Condell is right, Christianity is a death cult. Of all the Gods that humanity has contrived throughout history, how are we to know which is correct? As none of these Gods are willing or able to prove their existance, perhaps the truth is more complex than this? On the other hand, I believe that atheism is also a fallacy. Death releases the soul from illusion, it is not an ending of the self. If you wish to learn these things, stop following the paths set forth by others. Find your own way!
The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Issac Newton lived 1642-1727. The word "atheism" wasn't even there.. The closest word in that time, the word that it branched off of was "atheos"( ἄθεος).
The video in my last comment feature some of the worlds smartest people. They are OUR Issac Newtons... SO WHY WAIT 500 MORE YEARS TO LOOK BACK AND SEE WHAT THEY SAID. They are saying it right now... you can follow these people on twitter for crying out loud. #Atheist
Neil Tyson explains this best when he talks about some of the greatest minds ever reaching their knowledgeable limit. Similar to a idiot who thinks a tree came from god at which point he automatically inserts god to solve his problem VS. a biologist who knows where the tree came from but can't find a 4.5 billion yr old single cell in which HE inserts god... Here's Neil Tyson: /watch?v=RvqXV8JpWUw&feature=related
@LycaonsBane still looks gloom when you know you wont be here forever. have you thought about the possibility of an afterlife. Like the way you dream even when your body shuts down at night.
@LycaonsBane the reality that we find ourselves cannot be controlled by education, support and social programs, am afraid. The threats to civilisation has rather been caused by our discoveries and science. Your can pick up a calender and crossing out days of bad news and horror, and you will find out by the end of the year, you will have more days crossed out. The future looks gloomier everyday. Now if you consider what the Bible says about end times, you will see the pattern.
@LycaonsBane of all the millions of religion the atheist always chose to attack creationism and christianity. That means you do accept that christianity is superior to all other religons. Its is the true religion. that the jewish God is the true God. Well you can gamble with your souls. Enjoy your pathetic lives, filled with fear and uncertinaites of the future. It will be hopeless if there was no God. Not a single week passes without something major going wrong in this world.
I met Jesus about a month after I started looking for Him for real. Since I did believe that Jesus was real, I asked some Christians to baptize me on the beach, since the New Testament tells us to do so. As I continued to look "desperately" for Him He met me about a month later. Then He introduced me to Holy Spirit, that was a shocker, I didn't know anything about Him, nobody ever told me that He is a person. Peace.
I am real and so is Jesus, as incredible as it may seem to someone who has never met Him. I can't meet Him for you, you have to ask Him yourself. He WILL answer if you treat Him respectfully and ask Him for real. He has promised to meet anybody who looks for Him. Peace
@LycaonsBane there are a lot of things out there and you make wise choices. if some scientists think there is God and some think there isnt, it bounces back to you. What do you think. are you related to an ape or specially created by God, to have dominion over this earth and worship God. My favourite saying, if you die and there is no God, you wont know because there is no conciousness, but if you die and there is God, like some scientists say, well, that will be unthinkable.
The atheist kick themselves when they find out great thinkers were theist. they dont just get it. some people(theist) look at science and see the presence of God, others(atheist) see science and think they are apes.
I really do grow weary of the whole "someone believed in god hundreds of years ago therefore god exists" argument. If I lived in the 1600s, I'd probably believe in god too. Thankfully I'm currently living in 2011 and have the incredible framework of science to describe the world around me in exquisite detail. Thankfully I have evolved into a being whose genetic makeup leans towards science, because nothing is more amazing than nature and there is no better tool to understand her than science.
Jesus Christ is very much alive, He has come to see me many times. I'm nobody special, so if He comes to see me, I'm sure that He can do the same for you. I have known Him in person since 1975 and His friendship is the best thing that ever happened to me. Don't ask me to prove to you that He is alive, ask Him yourself, that's "how" it works. Holy Spirit is with me every second, I get to see many miracles as I pray for the sick. Man it's fun!
@Heksje55 I don't do drugs. I set people free from drug addiction in Jesus's name. He is so cool. I also help people who are hearing "voices" (evil spirits) in their head. Every day is an exciting adventure with Holy Spirit, woohooo!
@thewayofthemaster Many christians do. I don't mean to lump anyone in with anyone else, but one of the main factors of hatred toward the jews and antisemitism is the fact that they killed Christ. I just find it ironic that many people believe that it was God's plan to have Jesus killed as a sacrifice, and resent the people who followed God's plan.
@humorbeforedecency I understand what you're saying as I've seen it too. But it's not compatible with the Christian life. It makes no sense to be mad at anyone, when you realize that no one took Jesus' life, He willingly laid it down (John 10:18). Instead of anger, we should be thankful and joyous to Jesus for saving us while we were still in our sins! Anger toward the Jews, reflects someone who has no understanding of what the gospel is about and is perhaps a false convert.
@thewayofthemaster Newton was a child of his time and , outside of what he discovered himself , he was informed by the ignorance of his time, including it's religions and superstitions.
He also believed in alchemy and the "Philosophers stone" too.
Does his acceptance of them make them valid or fact?
You are demeaning the memory of a great thinker by ascribing your own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty to him!
@thewayofthemaster another weak religious tactic, point out any incompatibility or hypocrisy and the person at fault is 'a false covert' or 'not truly saved'. What ever happened to "Do not judge so that you will not be judged." Matthew 7:1. Can't even follow your own book...
@thewayofthemaster hows it feel to be prooved wrong about an athiest dont put quotes from the bible the bible also says adam cloned himself from a rib and 1 man gathered over 6 millions different species of animals and microamphibiens in 1 boat from a flood yeah magic apparently was 2000 years ago and for some reason isnt here today ha? get rid of all athiests? your an ignorant piece of shit
@humorbeforedecency They have the same contempt for Judas...and without Judas, there is no crucifixtion, hence, no eternal life. Some like to blame the Romans; again, another necessary component to the death and torture (by His stripes they are healed) of Jesus to give mankind forgiveness and eternal life. Make up your minds what you want people, the "goodies" of Jesus' sacrifice or to have these "bad" people stopped and/or dealt justice?!?!?!
@humorbeforedecency You do not understand and the purpose of reading the bible is to understand and that is something you can not download while you wait in line for a coffee or listening to Richard Dawkins
the thing is thatthough Newton was not an atheist he was not a christian. he denied the trinity, and had to be very guarded about this in a time when heretics were persecuted by the state. he was also an alchemist, as well as presumiong to set the datew for the 2nd coming (2060). in this he defied the clear teaching of scripture "No man knows the day or hour.
research this and see it is the case. this will end newton worship by christians
@Strefanasha *to add to that* His beliefs were irrelevant to his scientific work no where in there does it say in Newtons laws about god did it , and what's even funnier this guy can only cherry pick scientist 200 years long dead before evoultion was even established .
@Simplistic7SalvatioN I think you're confusing my comments with someone elses, since I said nothing about something not existing because nothing created it.
Something did create us all, and that something is nature.
Do you think, just because something has been created, it has to be intelligent design? What about when you combine chemicals to make something new... is God there, making it happen? What about human conception? Is God putting babies into people?
@Simplistic7SalvatioN No one. Atheism is a name of the lack of belief in deities. We're all born atheist, since atheism is the lack of belief in deities, and we are all born unaware of deities.
Gay
MrBiT3z 1 week ago
Christians believe that it earth was created by "god". No. there is other life on the billions of planets. It had to happen.
333Corvus 1 week ago
Everything is really pretty because GOD.
You know how little sense that makes? There are trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe, with billions of different combinations for distance, size, elemental make-up, etc. it would only make sense that at least ONE of these would fit the standards for life, and the fact that we are alive and observing that, proves it.
twostepRMX 1 week ago
@twostepRMX - As you point out, the vastness of the universe is beyond human comprehension. This does not argue against God; on the contrary, it is a deafening declaration FOR God. I don't know anyone, theist or otherwise, who proclaims that Earth is the "one and only." But I do know this: If there are millions, or billions of Earth-like planets, this is no more or less astounding than the idea that there is only one. And we are faced with the awesome mystery of creation...
fneebster 6 days ago
Argument from authority. Thus, a fallacy.
MrNeodarwinian 2 weeks ago
Wow, people arguing in the comments if God exists.... I didn't see that one coming....
camaro345 2 weeks ago
1) The title of this video is misleading and would imply a video about Newton's views on religion, not a video about Newton's contributions to science, followed by a quote
2) Newton's status as a prolific scientist does not make his religious viewpoints more credible, Newton also believed in alchemy, yet you don't make a video about why alchemy is real because Newton believed it
3) Universal Gravitation isn't even the correct model for describing gravity
tapelegs 4 weeks ago
@tapelegs 4)Newton was also coming from a time when only 6 planets were thought to exist. Based on the assumption of only 6 planets, the random occurrence of a life sustaining planet does seem impossible, but so much when you have the modern knowledge of hundreds of billions of billions of planets
5)Other famous scientists did not believe in a personal god, such as Einstein and Feynman, why not mention them as well, aren't you being one sided in only mentioning scientists that support your view?
tapelegs 4 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago
Newton was a smart guy but this quote is pretty easy to dismiss today due to the fact that we know that there are billions of galaxies and solar systems which means that the chances of a planet "randomly" being in the perfect position relative to the sun or any other star is pretty high.
TheSarnaran 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am riding from MA-FL to promote an evangelism book
Buy the book at lulu.com (just type on search bar - Heleno Henzo)
Generated profits will go to evangelism fund
Help me spread the good news
“If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe betide me if I do not proclaim the gospel!” I Corinthians 9:16
THEHELENOHENZO 1 month ago
(cont) This was at a time when an academic position required a commitment to join the church at a later date. Newton actually partitioned the king to be released from this commitment, and that was granted. If his religious views were to become known he would have been kicked out of Cambridge.
If his religious views are considered radical in that environment I wouldn't be using his words to try and prop up my argument.
AussieAtheist1 1 month ago
@AussieAtheist1 Well according to All Atheist. Every person of science now and then are closet Atheist. Einstein was defiantly not an atheist. He hated when atheist try to put his comment out of context. He felt Atheism was close minded. Even Carl Sagan thought Atheism was stupid stance on the question.
Tuber77 1 month ago in playlist They were atheist.
@Tuber77 You contradict yourself. By your logic either Einstein was an atheist and a man of science, or he wasn't an atheist and hence not a person of science. Einstein was a soft form of deist, he commented on this many times. I don't know of any quote that implies what you are saying, I know of several that attack those who atribute theism to him. I could give you a whole list of famous scientists who were/are theists, it makes no difference. (cont)
AussieAtheist1 1 month ago
@Tuber77 (cont) The source of information is unimportant, what matters is if the idea is supported by evidence. This is why Newtons theories WRT physics are still taught, yet his ideas on theology are barely known. (cont)
AussieAtheist1 1 month ago
@Tuber77 From Einstein "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." 28 Sep 1949 to to Guy H. Raner Jr
AussieAtheist1 1 month ago
@Tuber77 I understand what Einstien is saying, yet I don't accept his notion that atheism is the result of a crusading spirit. I don't have any personal issue with religion, my problem is with the attack on scientific knowledge and process through political means.
AussieAtheist1 1 month ago 2
Newton actually had more written on theology than physics. It begs the question, why isn't Newtons theories on theology taught anywhere? The answer is quite simple, he believed that Christ wasn't divine, that the Catholic church was the anti-christ and that the end of the world could be determined based on the time at which it came into dominance. It was hidden from the world by his friends who didn't want this stuff becoming public after his death, in a sense protecting his reputation (cont)
AussieAtheist1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you seeking truth? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" to open it. What it says will blow your mind.
jchijan 2 months ago
You think repeating a logical fallacy will convince atheists that a god is real just because it came from newton? Newton's question is invalid because he assumes the only alternative to design is chance which is false.
Look up the anthropic principle.
dlandon2000 2 months ago
@dlandon2000
The anthropic principle is founded on a philosophical argument. Philosophy, like science, changes, and in a hundred years or so, this antrhopic principle will either be true or false.
"Newton's question is invalid"
I'd call it more of a personal opinion. If only he were around, then you could argue with him. But to call his opinion a fallacy because of an argument that was not present at his time is a low blow.
Isaac Newton's words > Yours
JohnEliasOnSTEAM 2 months ago
@JohnSTEAM It's understandable why newton made a logically flawed argument but it's still flawed, and the anthropic principle is axiomatically true if the conditions are right. Think of it like a secret lottery where only the winner ever finds out it even happened. Thus only the winner of the lottery can even ponder the question "what are the odds i won that lottery," so it is with planets with intelligent life.
Science doesn't change randomly it converges on greater accuracy/understanding.
dlandon2000 2 months ago
@dlandon2000
"Science doesn't change randomly it converges on greater accuracy/understanding."
I completely agree, but it is only provisional. I don't know if you are into philosophy or not, but what do you think of George Herbert Mead's cultural a priori? We grew up in this scientific world only to be shaped by it. This is how I see it. Science will be favored on empirical grounds until we reach a new paradigm that might completely change our world views.
JohnEliasOnSTEAM 2 months ago
@JohnEliasOnSTEAM To be honest I'm not familiar with his work. I took a fair amount of logic type philosophy back in college but very little about specific philosophers and their ideas.
Given how fantastically successful the scientific method is I can't ever see abandoning it, even a major paradigm shift would only add to the tools in the scientific method, and how would we evaluate the effectiveness of a new paradigm... the scientific method. No other system in human history has worked as well
dlandon2000 2 months ago
@dlandon2000
I took a single Logic class, in which touched upon the basic structure of a logical argument (premise, conclusion, fallacies, etc), but other than that, I never really continued. In short, cultural a priori is the shaping of the self according to a specific culture, geographical placement, and interactions within that group that define the self (the Me and I). Basically I argued that science favours the current cultural paradigm we live in.
JohnEliasOnSTEAM 2 months ago
@dlandon2000
I also completely agree with you that science will only grow, and the scientific methodology will only help further advance our knowledge concerning science, whether the approach is by including a God or not, nothing can stop the growth of science. The way we study it is dependent on culture.
JohnEliasOnSTEAM 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnEliasOnSTEAM "The way we study it is dependent on culture."
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean what subjects we research or do you mean research methods or financial support of science. Could you expand on that?
dlandon2000 2 months ago
Newtons word is not law
gumme1234 2 months ago
@gumme1234
No, it's LAWesome.
JohnEliasOnSTEAM 2 months ago
@JohnEliasOnSTEAM Wut?
gumme1234 2 months ago
All I'm asking from any atheist or scientist is can you admit that a Creator is a possibility? IT has not been scientifically disproven because Science is yet to discover the origins of all things. And therefore if God COULD be true, to investigate that possibility, even if it means doing so in an unscientific way (which is what science does with macro evolution anyway... take a leap of faith!!).
Acts1v8 2 months ago
@Acts1v8
As a good believer, you shouldn't ask anyone of anything Acts1v8. God will either come to them when the time is right, if not at all. The one thing people hate is to have someone else telling them what to do. Regardless, we are all humans, we all want freedom in some way... Also, macroevolution is just the denial that a species can turn into another species. But it does argue the theory of evolution. For me, God is science.
JohnEliasOnSTEAM 2 months ago
@JohnEliasOnSTEAM You've obviously not read your Bible. I'm not good, I'm a sinner saved by grace. Secondly, The Bible is full of teachings, exhortations and commands to do and not do certain things for the benefit of the believer, to save people and for the glory of God. Eg 'Repent and be bapitized everyone of you' –– Peter speaking to thousands of people on the day of Pentecost. It is our job as Christians to tell the good news. 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel' –– Jesus
Acts1v8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Acts1v8 "can you admit that a Creator is a possibility?"
Sure, quote me: "It's possible, perhaps even likely that there was a creation event."
I'll give you one further:
"Even a creation event at the whimsical hands of a deity is possible."
So sure, investigate that possibility, but why do it in an unscientific way? Why would you want to investigate something without objective, verifiable evidence?
I thank god that your not a criminal detective.
doubleKlutch 2 months ago
Wow. My legs are exactly the right length to reach the ground. Definitive proof of a creator!!!!! :)
mdppearce 2 months ago
@mdppearce Sarcasm doesn't negate the obvious. If a building is built it needs a builder. While Science will continue to spend another hundred years in there fruitless search as to 'how and why' the Universe came into being, Christians will relax peacefully in the full knowledge that stars, mountains, bees and flowers are all the proof we need of a great cosmic, supernatural, miraculous Creator called Yahweh who designed a purposeful creation. Amazing Creator, amazing grace.
Acts1v8 2 months ago
@Acts1v8
The builder needs a creator also. So extending your analogy, who made God?
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
@EnceladusEmpire Thats the whole idea. If God is God and the creator of all things, then he is eternal, unchanging and has no beginning or end. He has always existed and always will. As the Bible says 'from everlasting to everlasting you are God'.
Acts1v8 2 months ago
Tide goes in, Tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.
You moron.
ogarzabello 2 months ago
Look up the Anthropic principle, retards
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
@EnceladusEmpire Anthropic principle is stronger for theism than atheism. Right?
Acts1v8 2 months ago
@Acts1v8
No. It basically says if conditions aren't beneficial to life's evolution somewhere. then it will not evolve there. Therefore, observers will only evolve on a planet suitable to that kind of life. No need for divine intervention. Isaac Newton lived in a time when it was thought that there were only six planets in the whole universe, so such a view was reasonable then. Now we know that there are many billions of planets in this galaxy alone.
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
@EnceladusEmpire Theory. And like I heard from an award winning scientist and physicist this morning on Radio 4, they still don't know how it all began, or in the words of Dawkins "Scientists don't yet know how it all began, they're working on it". I like how you say 'no need for divine intervention' as if the theory that conditions must be suitable for life to evolve, is again by chance. The point is, and Newton was right on this, the positioning of the planets cannot happen by chance.
Acts1v8 2 months ago
@Acts1v8
The anthropic principle isn't a hypothesis; it is common sense. That explains Newton's fallacy perfectly.
And because science has still got a few gaps left to fill, that does not mean that one you can assume a god did it. Where is the evidence ?
There are so many permutations of arrangements of planets in the universe that it is a statistical certainty that a few billion would have earth-mass planets in the habitable zone. It is not blind luck; it is the aggregation of probability.
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
@EnceladusEmpire Neither does it assume that God didn't do it. The Bible says that made everything from nothing. (how long it took is irrelevant at this point). Science doesn't know and the mystery as to how everything came from nothing will baffle the greatest minds for centuries to come. Newton and dozens of other world changing scientists accepted (with little knowledge they had of the Universe) that God created it, the complexities of human biology were sufficient.
Acts1v8 2 months ago
@Acts1v8
Newton believed that God made the universe BECAUSE of the little knowledge of the universe at that time. The complexities of human biology can be intricately explained in full by Darwin's principle of evolution, which has plenty of evidence, including many thousands of transitional forms; and no component of irreducible complexity has ever been found. Science doesn't know the mystery of creation, but we have made great progress. Religion makes no progress as it is not self-correcting.
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
@EnceladusEmpire Two clues to what you just said. Mystery and Creation. Both are attributes of God: Creator and a mystery (that is unfathomable to the human mind). The very fact you use the word creation is a logical result of a creator. 'Creations' by scientific standards cannot create themselves. They may adapt, change and evolve due to created circumstances around them, but they cannot by definition create themselves from nothing. It is a mathematical and physical impossibility.
Acts1v8 2 months ago
@EnceladusEmpire //Newton believed that God made the universe BECAUSE of the little knowledge of the universe at that time.// Actually, Newton believed it primarily because of the authority of God's Word. The Bible was then and (for some conservative evangelicals) the authoritative word of God. Newton didn't need to work it out scientifically because of his small knowledge of the Universe, he already accepted from the very fact that it exists, that its there, that someone must have put it there.
Acts1v8 2 months ago
@Acts1v8 "the very fact that it exists ... [means] that someone [or something?] must have put it there."
This is why I believe in god (lower-case 'g'), but I am Atheist.
This is especially confusing when your god's name is 'God'.
Yes, there must be some force that defines existence in some ethereal way, but that does not mean it's a deity.
I don't even believe in a creation event, but I still ponder god in the paradoxical beauty of my sentience.
The god concept has nothing to do with the Bible.
doubleKlutch 2 months ago
@doubleKlutch
I'll also add, I wasn't targeting you. I am a strong believer, and I do take into account the lively world around us. I do not completely disregard science... I see religion and science as one. I'm just looking for some good debating, but often things get out of hand.
lol
JohnEliasOnSTEAM 2 months ago
@doubleKlutch YEs your right. god has nothing to do with the Bible, because you made 'it' up. Your god is as diverse and different from Joe Bloggs next door. Which is precisely why the God of the Bible, the creator God (that's what he calls himself) "I am the Lord your God, apart from me there is no other" –– Isaiah. Truth is not subjective. Don't be fooled by our post-modern society into thinking that there is no ultimate Truth. God is God, it's objective.
Acts1v8 2 months ago
@Acts1v8 "because you made 'it' up." - Actually, I just agreed with your definition: "The universe exists, so some[thing] must have put it here." I don't make anything further up; beyond that, I know nothing else about god. I'll leave wild, subjective speculation to presumptuous, corrupt texts like the Bible.
I agree that truth is objective, and is true whether we believe it or not. I just don't think the Bible and it's 'God' are anything close to objective Truth.
doubleKlutch 2 months ago
@EnceladusEmpire //It is not blind luck; it is the aggregation of probability.//
You should look into the infinite monkey theorem. No matter how many monkeys you have. It is a scientific impossibility that they would, by probability, be able to create just one page of a Shakespeare writing, given infinite number of years. The point is, in order to create one page of Hamlet, you need an intelligent mind and writer and you're telling us that this Universe was the aggregation of probability!!!?
Acts1v8 2 months ago
Comment removed
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
@Acts1v8
Also, you got the infinite monkey theorem wrong. Even a single monkey can write out in perfection every piece of literature ever written, given an infinite amount of years. The probability of doing so in a given timeframe is vanishingly small, but still finite. And a finite number multiplied by infinity is infinity. This theorem was created to show the remarkable mathematical properties of infinity.
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
@EnceladusEmpire The theorem has also been used to show atheists the improbability that the massively complex design of the Universe is chance or mathematical probability. There is one well known atheist that changes his view of God based on this theorem alone. With regard to human biology and transitional forms, there is not 1 single species to species transitional form to date. Macro evolution is still considered to be a theory and not yet fact by a large number of Scientists.
Acts1v8 2 months ago
@Acts1v8 In science, a theory is stronger than a fact. The common use of the word 'theory' is not the same as the scientific use.
A fact is observed, and can be misleading if the observation is obscured.
A scientific theory is tested extensively, and takes obscurity into account .
That does not mean that a scientific theory can't be wrong, but to equate a scientific theory with a religious guess or assumption betrays your misunderstanding of the word 'theory'.
doubleKlutch 2 months ago
@doubleKlutch
I had a similar argument with another on a different video. From an out of the box view, theories, laws, and facts are not completely proven. That does not make them neither right or wrong. Of course, we live in a scientific culture (look around you) so of course we favor empirical data more than we would religious claims. Thus, the evidence we do have that supports a theory, law, fact is more likely to be considered true.
JohnEliasOnSTEAM 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Acts1v8 This is a false analogy. The number of combinations of words in one page of Hamlet is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. A planet in the habitable zone of a star, however, is much more likely. Conservative estimates imply that 10% of stars have planets in the habitable zone. The Earth seems so perfect for life because life evolved to suit Earth's environment (and changed a lot of it in the process, like oxygenation of the atmosphere by cyanobacteria)
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
@EnceladusEmpire What is frustrating for the human mind is we can't work out why or how. Instead of accepting that we are the creation and the creator is boss, and therefore getting to know him, we spend fruitless years trying to work out the impossible...how everything we see now came from nothing and if it came from nothing, what was nothing?! Its beyond human comprehension and just because it may be uncomfortable to accept that an eternal God created it all, doesn't mean it can't be true.
Acts1v8 2 months ago
@Acts1v8 "What is frustrating for the human mind is we can't work out why or how."
That is only frustrating for religious people.
I have no problem saying, 'I don't know yet,' or, 'I will not know in my lifetime.' This position of true humility is the only starting place for real knowledge. You can't fill a cup that is already full.
doubleKlutch 2 months ago
Newton's law of constant gravitation states that all masses experience an attraction to each other proportional to their to masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. If there is as much matter as there is in the universe, it is inevitable that at least one planet would experience a centripetal force that would provide an orbit of suitable radius (Kepler's Third Law) to harbour life. Earth is therefore not a question of chance but of overwhelming mathematical probability.
olliemorris93 2 months ago
Actually the distance the earth is from the sun did happen by chance. The fact that there are billions of different planets at all different distances from stars means there must be a chance. Only if all planets were the same distance from stars would there be no chance.
humpfry24 2 months ago
@humpfry24 The point from Newton is, the positioning of the planets can't be by chance, therefore it has to be purposeful and designed. It doesn't matter that all stars and planets are different distances from one another, what matters is they are positioned so mathematically intricate in order to function, that they therefore must have had a designer.
Acts1v8 2 months ago
Comment removed
aMag712 3 months ago
@aMag712 Issac Newton also wrote books on alchemy.
EternalAu 3 months ago
lol its not a competition you know, just because some famous scientist thought so, doesnt mean its true. please also remember he doesnt get all the facts straight some 400 years ago. duhhh. if he knew there would be a man named Edwin Hubble to "discover" 50 billion galaxies and counting, i think he can calculate himself, how mind bogglingly easy it is for planets to get the right amount of distance,heat, composition, etc etc since theres practically unlimited number to throw the dice...
captdavidwebb 3 months ago
Comment removed
aMag712 3 months ago
@aMag712 sounds so retarded because you dont have the brain capacity the measure it, about 50-100 billion galaxies, 400 billions stars in each, you must be pretty dumb to think earth is a pretty special and magical place.
again how dare you accusing people dont know statistic ? you are the moron who dont even understand how universe works. and thinks planet in habitable zone is very rare and earth is so special?? lol.
learn astronomy first before you talking out of your ass.
captdavidwebb 3 months ago
Comment removed
aMag712 3 months ago
@aMag712 right on!
CuteYetiTv 3 months ago
people are idiots
niinja2 3 months ago
The one chance newton got made an big mistake with earlier human life wich found it before him that is matematic question if he had longer or reavilier question it would made H=001828 brastoshions so that nich is almost evrything
MrTheHobbits 3 months ago
I wonder if Newton would have said that if he had any idea about the size or history of the universe.
Just because he was one of the greatest figures in the history of science doesn't mean he knew more than scientists know today.
Molo9000 3 months ago
But it did happen by chance if chance is defined to be a complex pattern of strict natural laws, sir Isaac Newton.
TheFinlandnator 3 months ago
@TheFinlandnator YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
TheJdecka 3 months ago
Banana Man isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...
And Kirk? Come on!
odinata 3 months ago
How do you relate atheism vs creationism to newton's accomplishments in Math and Physics?
What a moronic video.
Gunner3210 3 months ago
@DaBluedude100 you remind me of a friend who has the same ideals as you except he knows how to act more courteous then you that is, but do look more into history in your logic and you will realize that all of religions had some type of violent act portrayed in their religion even atheism has very violent acts as well and my belief is that atheism will try to bring an end to Christianity as i see it so could it be the other way around it has been done before as history shows us
crystalbluerain 3 months ago
Iasac Newton Born in 1643. nuff said he was bright but his statement was uttered in a time where a suggestion that there was no god was shunned and people were put to death.
Long story made short here. FUCK OFF CHRISTIANS STOP FIGHTING LOGIC AND SENSE. You are holding this planet back and you seek to destroy all of us. If you must be with god then go join him. Organize a mass suicide. Disembark from this sinful plain and go away.
DaBluedude100 3 months ago
And yet, when Napoleon was asked by Descartes to explain the universe mathematically, Napoleon said "why do i see no term for God in these equations?", Descartes said "I have no need for him".
I believe in God, but don't go using Science to prove His existence. That simply cannot be done, just as it cannot be used to prove he cannot. The point of "faith" is that you accept without proof and for faith to be important, God must remain unprovable!. You muppet!
moonrockguy 3 months ago
Whether or NOT God exists makes NO practical difference. The degree of our Scientific understanding of Nature dose make a practical difference. It's the only thing that makes our lives BETTER then that of our Ancestors... not perpetuating Religious Dogma !!! GOD is about as useful and provides as many answers about the Universe as Santa Claus to Xmas !!! There are BETTER answers to both... how the Universe and the Xmas presents got here !!!
Redshift313 3 months ago
The last part of the video was really sad.
mimikawaii7386 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 months ago
@Mogley52
M-theory is a natural law that could allow a spontaneous creation of the universe. You shouldn't cite science which you know nothing about.
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
@EnceladusEmpire Interesting that you call a "theory" a law, which in its very nature dictates that there be a law-giver.
thewayofthemaster 2 months ago
@thewayofthemaster
False analogy. Human laws are invented in order to allow society to function. Natural laws are fundamental principles. Even if a god existed, and fine-tuned the universe, even It's alleged omnipotence cannot decide some of the laws, like the change in strength of gravity. Gravity follows the inverse square law, for example, precisely because the universe has three macro spatial dimensions.
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
@thewayofthemaster
And theists like to misuse the scientific use of the word 'theory'
In science, it does not mean 'guess' or 'hypothesis'!
In science a theory is a set of principles that can be used to accurately describe a particular aspect of nature. So, the theory of evolution, translated into non-scientific context, would be called the principle of evolution, because it is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, and describes beautifully the complexity of nature
EnceladusEmpire 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NO REAL VIOLATION OF CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION in teaching both evolution and Intelligent Design because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATHEISTS ARE MORE EDUCATED is a red herring argument. What about all the educated that aren't atheists? Many times, the minority has been right in history. The atheists and evolutionists control the education system and certain arguments and evidences aren't presented or known, even among the educated. There are strong personal motives involved on the issue of origins. That is why it is important to present arguments and evidences of both sides to the public.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
well... everything is so perfect we have a lot of water,the sun is at the right distance from not killing us,we can make our own food.idk......
commando2224 3 months ago
Sir Newton, why didn't you mention those billions of billions of other planets that are miraculously NOT at the right distance???
17secret 3 months ago
Any remotely smart person who can think for himself/herself will be an atheist. Only dumb asses who can't even graduate from high school still believe in God. In the scientific community, there are very few individuals who still hold on to creationism.
Gunner3210 3 months ago
RELIGION gets me into arguments with IDIOTS, PΞДCΞ & Ŀ☼√Ξ
AntonyThorburn 3 months ago
Fact is we would not be here but for an intelligence beyond our understanding.
AikenBruce 4 months ago
Atheism Rules
kenobr 4 months ago
You're absolutely correct! It certainly didn't happen by chance, but through a series of well-defined and testable natural mechanisms.
Still not getting it, I see.
hackenbollox 4 months ago
Human life is evoloved to fit the living conditions on Earth, if the sun or the earth were closer to or further from each other, we would merely be born diffrent beings who are able to live in those conditions that's it. I don't beileve this is Issac Newton quote, I beileve its christian propaganda. The same way they claimed to quote Einstein about god.
ifrostythe 4 months ago
Newton was a genius who lived 300 years ago and was arrogant enough to claim that if there was something he couldn't explain, it had to have a supernatural explanation. But I'm happy to see that christians accept classical physics. It's a first step.
weberbeat 4 months ago
When Newton made that quote, he didn't know how big the universe was, and how many planetoids there actually are.
Lyinginbedmon 4 months ago
Pat Condell is right, Christianity is a death cult. Of all the Gods that humanity has contrived throughout history, how are we to know which is correct? As none of these Gods are willing or able to prove their existance, perhaps the truth is more complex than this? On the other hand, I believe that atheism is also a fallacy. Death releases the soul from illusion, it is not an ending of the self. If you wish to learn these things, stop following the paths set forth by others. Find your own way!
Chipymonk 4 months ago
Ya, but Newton was also an alchemist that thought he could change lead into gold.
Just because a man has one or two or even a few amazing ideas, it doesn't mean everything he says is true.
simbeau 4 months ago
@simbeau so your saying hes wrong...
mhypersonic 4 months ago
The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Issac Newton lived 1642-1727. The word "atheism" wasn't even there.. The closest word in that time, the word that it branched off of was "atheos"( ἄθεος).
GoLucky1236 5 months ago 2
LOL@religious people using someone who lived in the 1600's as an example of an inteligent ''believer''.
canuckman87 5 months ago
The video in my last comment feature some of the worlds smartest people. They are OUR Issac Newtons... SO WHY WAIT 500 MORE YEARS TO LOOK BACK AND SEE WHAT THEY SAID. They are saying it right now... you can follow these people on twitter for crying out loud. #Atheist
lightitupfool 5 months ago
Neil Tyson explains this best when he talks about some of the greatest minds ever reaching their knowledgeable limit. Similar to a idiot who thinks a tree came from god at which point he automatically inserts god to solve his problem VS. a biologist who knows where the tree came from but can't find a 4.5 billion yr old single cell in which HE inserts god... Here's Neil Tyson: /watch?v=RvqXV8JpWUw&feature=related
lightitupfool 5 months ago
@LycaonsBane It's not about "me", but thanks :-)
thalonen 5 months ago
@LycaonsBane still looks gloom when you know you wont be here forever. have you thought about the possibility of an afterlife. Like the way you dream even when your body shuts down at night.
swandike 5 months ago
@LycaonsBane the reality that we find ourselves cannot be controlled by education, support and social programs, am afraid. The threats to civilisation has rather been caused by our discoveries and science. Your can pick up a calender and crossing out days of bad news and horror, and you will find out by the end of the year, you will have more days crossed out. The future looks gloomier everyday. Now if you consider what the Bible says about end times, you will see the pattern.
swandike 5 months ago
@LycaonsBane do you think you can do something about what? bad news? what do you think we can do to stop bad news then?
swandike 5 months ago
@LycaonsBane of all the millions of religion the atheist always chose to attack creationism and christianity. That means you do accept that christianity is superior to all other religons. Its is the true religion. that the jewish God is the true God. Well you can gamble with your souls. Enjoy your pathetic lives, filled with fear and uncertinaites of the future. It will be hopeless if there was no God. Not a single week passes without something major going wrong in this world.
swandike 5 months ago
@LycaonsBane
I met Jesus about a month after I started looking for Him for real. Since I did believe that Jesus was real, I asked some Christians to baptize me on the beach, since the New Testament tells us to do so. As I continued to look "desperately" for Him He met me about a month later. Then He introduced me to Holy Spirit, that was a shocker, I didn't know anything about Him, nobody ever told me that He is a person. Peace.
thalonen 5 months ago
@LycaonsBane
I am real and so is Jesus, as incredible as it may seem to someone who has never met Him. I can't meet Him for you, you have to ask Him yourself. He WILL answer if you treat Him respectfully and ask Him for real. He has promised to meet anybody who looks for Him. Peace
PS. Hope the water thing worked out...
thalonen 5 months ago
@LycaonsBane there are a lot of things out there and you make wise choices. if some scientists think there is God and some think there isnt, it bounces back to you. What do you think. are you related to an ape or specially created by God, to have dominion over this earth and worship God. My favourite saying, if you die and there is no God, you wont know because there is no conciousness, but if you die and there is God, like some scientists say, well, that will be unthinkable.
swandike 5 months ago
The atheist kick themselves when they find out great thinkers were theist. they dont just get it. some people(theist) look at science and see the presence of God, others(atheist) see science and think they are apes.
swandike 5 months ago in playlist Pull the Plug on Atheism
I dislike this.
At least you allow dissenting comments.
TheCraich 5 months ago
I really do grow weary of the whole "someone believed in god hundreds of years ago therefore god exists" argument. If I lived in the 1600s, I'd probably believe in god too. Thankfully I'm currently living in 2011 and have the incredible framework of science to describe the world around me in exquisite detail. Thankfully I have evolved into a being whose genetic makeup leans towards science, because nothing is more amazing than nature and there is no better tool to understand her than science.
PelicanGodOfJupiter 5 months ago 2
Remember, just because Newton is a famous scientist doesn't mean he was right about everything.
For instance, he also believed in alchemy. Does that mean he was right and that alchemy is real? No, and the same goes with religion.
HerlockSholmes123 6 months ago
Do you think you have the mind ?? /watch?v=8DSd2l0Qpq0&feature=related
BeautyUSAm 6 months ago
what's wrong with atheists???
BlankSkullProduction 6 months ago
Jesus Christ is very much alive, He has come to see me many times. I'm nobody special, so if He comes to see me, I'm sure that He can do the same for you. I have known Him in person since 1975 and His friendship is the best thing that ever happened to me. Don't ask me to prove to you that He is alive, ask Him yourself, that's "how" it works. Holy Spirit is with me every second, I get to see many miracles as I pray for the sick. Man it's fun!
thalonen 6 months ago
@thalonen: If you stop doing drugs and leave the bottles with alcohol closed you'll see that Jesus isn't visiting you.
Heksje55 6 months ago
@Heksje55 I don't do drugs. I set people free from drug addiction in Jesus's name. He is so cool. I also help people who are hearing "voices" (evil spirits) in their head. Every day is an exciting adventure with Holy Spirit, woohooo!
thalonen 6 months ago
Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians…
-John Maynard Keynes
FeLiNe418 6 months ago
@FeLiNe418
He was both.
powerdriller10 6 months ago
maybe newton said that because he didn't want to be burnt alive
FeLiNe418 6 months ago
@FeLiNe418
Newton wasn't a coward like you think him to have been.
ivlfounder 6 months ago
Christians believe that Jesus is alive, they are thankful that he died, and they bemoan that he was killed...
They do realize these are incompatible beliefs right?
humorbeforedecency 6 months ago 4
@humorbeforedecency Bemoan that he was killed? I don't think so.
thewayofthemaster 6 months ago
@thewayofthemaster Many christians do. I don't mean to lump anyone in with anyone else, but one of the main factors of hatred toward the jews and antisemitism is the fact that they killed Christ. I just find it ironic that many people believe that it was God's plan to have Jesus killed as a sacrifice, and resent the people who followed God's plan.
humorbeforedecency 6 months ago 5
@humorbeforedecency I understand what you're saying as I've seen it too. But it's not compatible with the Christian life. It makes no sense to be mad at anyone, when you realize that no one took Jesus' life, He willingly laid it down (John 10:18). Instead of anger, we should be thankful and joyous to Jesus for saving us while we were still in our sins! Anger toward the Jews, reflects someone who has no understanding of what the gospel is about and is perhaps a false convert.
thewayofthemaster 6 months ago 4
@thewayofthemaster Newton was a child of his time and , outside of what he discovered himself , he was informed by the ignorance of his time, including it's religions and superstitions.
He also believed in alchemy and the "Philosophers stone" too.
Does his acceptance of them make them valid or fact?
You are demeaning the memory of a great thinker by ascribing your own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty to him!
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@thewayofthemaster another weak religious tactic, point out any incompatibility or hypocrisy and the person at fault is 'a false covert' or 'not truly saved'. What ever happened to "Do not judge so that you will not be judged." Matthew 7:1. Can't even follow your own book...
RonPaul1776 4 months ago
@thewayofthemaster hows it feel to be prooved wrong about an athiest dont put quotes from the bible the bible also says adam cloned himself from a rib and 1 man gathered over 6 millions different species of animals and microamphibiens in 1 boat from a flood yeah magic apparently was 2000 years ago and for some reason isnt here today ha? get rid of all athiests? your an ignorant piece of shit
pur3k0 4 months ago
@humorbeforedecency They have the same contempt for Judas...and without Judas, there is no crucifixtion, hence, no eternal life. Some like to blame the Romans; again, another necessary component to the death and torture (by His stripes they are healed) of Jesus to give mankind forgiveness and eternal life. Make up your minds what you want people, the "goodies" of Jesus' sacrifice or to have these "bad" people stopped and/or dealt justice?!?!?!
SkinnyWmn69 3 months ago
@humorbeforedecency You do not understand and the purpose of reading the bible is to understand and that is something you can not download while you wait in line for a coffee or listening to Richard Dawkins
mikeoli 4 months ago
the thing is thatthough Newton was not an atheist he was not a christian. he denied the trinity, and had to be very guarded about this in a time when heretics were persecuted by the state. he was also an alchemist, as well as presumiong to set the datew for the 2nd coming (2060). in this he defied the clear teaching of scripture "No man knows the day or hour.
research this and see it is the case. this will end newton worship by christians
Strefanasha 6 months ago
@Strefanasha *to add to that* His beliefs were irrelevant to his scientific work no where in there does it say in Newtons laws about god did it , and what's even funnier this guy can only cherry pick scientist 200 years long dead before evoultion was even established .
nextgenvids 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a video on my channel that addresses God's existence if you have questions about that. BOOYARG!!!!
ChronicCaptivation 6 months ago
@Simplistic7SalvatioN I think you're confusing my comments with someone elses, since I said nothing about something not existing because nothing created it.
Something did create us all, and that something is nature.
Do you think, just because something has been created, it has to be intelligent design? What about when you combine chemicals to make something new... is God there, making it happen? What about human conception? Is God putting babies into people?
I thought he didn't intervene?
ScabeiathraxUK 6 months ago
@Simplistic7SalvatioN No one. Atheism is a name of the lack of belief in deities. We're all born atheist, since atheism is the lack of belief in deities, and we are all born unaware of deities.
ScabeiathraxUK 6 months ago