MAY THE LORD OF ALL HEAVEN AND EARTH BLESS YOU ALL THROUGH JESUS CHRIST,
RAYMOND

To paraphrase G.H. Hardy–spelling doesn’t work before breakfast!
Sorry, Penny

best
Penny

Today, I am going to go off and see “Sunshine”–I desperately need to see a comedy! From an Astronomy perspective–that is what it is!

It is also now clear “The Crest of the Peacock” ( Cambridge Uni Press) that calculus was known in Kerela, India– long before Newton “discovered it” and
that they were using differential equations. No so surprising, when one realizes
that Kerela was a major spice trader with Europe–so that the ideas could easily get to Europe–or that Archimedes had explored many aspects of Calculus. However, this is being ignored –though clearly established–as all things were invented by European white men. So was Newton such a genius after all?

In a similar way, in a slightly later time, India beat Europe by about a century in applying
Hill’s differential equation to the three body problem ( see above ref), but we still call it Hill’s equation. Heavens, China beat Cramer to the determinate solution of
linear systems by centuries and we know it, but still call it Cramer’s rule.
All things were invented by Christian European white male geniuses.

Newton’s teacher Issac Barrow also had many aspects of calculus, such as the differential triangle.

Finally, would Newton–if alive today–be a cosmologist? First and formost, as then–he would be a MATHEMATICIAN. He would probably dabble some in cosmology, as he did in Natural Philosophy.
Penny

If Newton were alive today, he’d probably master calculus by 14 or so, but might figure the big money is in Wall Street. He’d likely be running a hedge fund with complex buy-sell algorithms by 30, not applying for tenure.

Einstein’s work only made sense in light of further discoveries in chemistry and physics. Without understanding the concept of the photon, or electromagnetics, Einstein would not have reached the revelation he made. So in order for Newton to have made sense of Relativity and the effects to his own ideas, he would have to also become aware of the intervening results in the nature of atoms, light, and electromagnetics.

Assuming he had the time to read and digest all of that material, it is difficult to determine if he would have stubbornly refused some of the implications, or if he would have accepted them in light of the results of testing. The admirer in me would like to think that Newton was bright enough to follow the science, and would have rethought his position given how GR was able to explain something his own math could not.

However, much of what was computed with regards to planetary motion was actually done by others after Newton.

Hominids in their different forms have only been around a very short time(ten of millions of years)of the Earth’s history,(4.5 billion years) much less the history of the universe.

In light of such almost incomprehensible distances and enormous time intervals doesn’t it seem slightly ludicrous and incredibly presumptive for any of us, but especially the fundamentalists, to be “absolutely certain” of anything? Of holding “the truth”?

In all that space and time which we have only the smallest personal experience with, how can we possibly know that one 4000 year old religion is the absolute and unrefutable truth?

At least science, as imperfect as it is, at it’s best, keeps searching,asking questions and allows that almost any fact can be falsified and revised.

Religious fundamentalism is a pathological symptom of a “constipated mind”.

If archaic religious beliefs cannot evolve to adapt to new conditions and information, they will become extinct or at least irrelevant as other pre-scientific beliefs have become in the past. Increasingly such dogmas are showing themselves to be a huge obstacle to the resolution of the difficult political situations and urgent ecological problems we face.

Fundamentalism is one “species” many of us will not agnonize over it’s demise.

But those puzzled by nothing
will never notice.

“all I can say is that your inflammatory comment is completely unfounded, and should use logic to create a meaningful argument instead of your personal biases.”

Aw!

“My use of the phrase “materialistic evolutionists” simply refers to the scientists who believe that the only answer is the physical world that they can touch, feel, and see, and they limit themselves to that.”

In other words, atheists. I’m glad you don’t think they are evil, that’s nice. But people who study evolution are no more materialistic than anyone else. And there are such things as scientists who are also religious. Most of them don’t let religious ideas stop them from using the scientific method. Even to them, evidence DOES matter when it comes to doing science. The study of evolution, whether it is done by a religious or non-religious scientist is no more “materialistic” than the study of physics, chemistry, geology or the weather. God might be responsible for all of it. If you got a problem with atheists who disagree or think that’s dumb, go take it up with them – I’m not one. But no “evolutionist” would use that word to describe themself. And your use of the word “materialistic” to me shows your own biases. I’ve only ever seen those words used in that context by fundies who generally use that term to create a “boogieman” they can complain about. I don’t have a problem with religion. But if I feel that someone is talking daft, I will say so.

Sorry. (shrug)

What would Newton have made of Einstein’s work which showed flaws in Newtonian mechanics?

You do not have the liberty to pick and choose.

Yes it is. Thank you. It is not actually a quote from God as you claimed, but it will do, I suppose. And I have one more question: do you actually believe that quote to be factual? A very simple question: Yes or No.

I am guessing you won’t answer.

Is this the quote you wanted

I thought you were after a quote on what “Apparent age” taught from a YEC source to back up my summary of the YEC position, sorry about that confusion

MichaelS

In the article I linked to in a previous post, it did mention fossils. According to YECs the fossils are not part of the doctrine of apparent age, but are to do with the global flood of Noah – which is a side topic for another time.

I was just trying to show what the doctrine of Apparent Age says in response to some of the criticisms levelled at it.

As for Darth Robo, all I can say is that your inflammatory comment is completely unfounded, and should use logic to create a meaningful argument instead of your personal biases. My use of the phrase “materialistic evolutionists” simply refers to the scientists who believe that the only answer is the physical world that they can touch, feel, and see, and they limit themselves to that. And your right, science itself makes no such claim. Its the people that do that. Oh, and i don’t recall posting anywhere or hinting that I think atheists are evil, because i don’t.