Quote from Newton

[Patty]

I'd like to share the following quote from that giant of science, Sir Isaac Newton, a bright chap even by the standards of this forum. It's taken from "Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his Writings" (Hafner Publishing Company, 1953):

"Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels); and just two eyes, and no more, on either side of the face; and just two ears on either side [of] the head; and a nose with two holes; and either two forelegs or two wings or two arms on the shoulders, and two legs on the hips, and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom, and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard transparent skin and within transparent humours, with a crystalline lens in the middle and a pupil before the lens, all of them so finely shaped and fitted for vision that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it?

These and suchlike considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a Being who made all things and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared."

[JimmyC]

I like Newton!

[Mara]

How true!

[Joefromsa]

Best contemporary description of the Divine Being to date... (although he made my life miserable at school with all his formulaes ) May he RIP...

[Patty]

I'd like to follow this up with a quotation from the writings of Charles Darwin:

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

[Patty]

Some more from Darwin - yes, Charles Darwin:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

[Michele R]

(although he made my life miserable at school with all his formulaes )

You and me both...I still don't get them!

[Omzig]

I'd like to share the following quote from that giant of science, Sir Isaac Newton

I'd also like to share some more great facts about Newton, sourced from "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson:

"Newton spent much of his time either practicing alchemy (trying to prove lead could be turned into gold) or trying to disprove the Christian religious tenet of the Trinity. When he did devote time to serious science, some of his methods didn’t exactly indicate soundness of mind. While studying lights and colors, Newton once stuck a big needle in his eye socket to determine what was back there. He also once stared at the sun so long that he had to spend days in a darkened room to recover his vision."

Oh, BTW, the complexity of the eye argument has been discussed in National Geographic in great detail.

[Dax]

Not to mention the fact that his work on gravitational physics was so on-the-ball That when NASA started to fly to the Moon with their Apollo missions, they used only Newtonian physics for their programming and ignored Einsteinian Relativity.

For space flight restricted to our Solar system, Newtonian physics is adequate.

Dax

[Theophilus]

The basic issue is irreducible complexity:

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-c...ible-complexity

[Cyberdeth]

I still like the movie, Evolution. It's funny and informative...

[Patty]

While on the subject of rocket science, it's interesting to note the following quote by Wernher von Braun, considered by NASA to be the greatest rocket scientist ever:

"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all ... The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design on which it is based ... To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself ... What random process could produce the brains of a man or the system of the human eye? ... They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? ... They say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? ... What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? ... It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance."

[Toitjie]

The basic issue is irreducible complexity:

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-c...ible-complexity

Quote from article above.

"Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.) [sA 83]"

I have always thought that quoting text without its context is a little dangerous, as it might be miscontrued. But I am doing the same, quoting something from Richard Dawkins regarding the lack of fossil record and the "burden of proof". Admittedly, this will not make everyone feel fuzzy and warm inside, I mean no disrespect, but there are truly big questions out there, as cited above, that may be debated a little. I do feel slightly in favour of Dawkins as he has given so many sound and plausible arguments that it feels comfortable reading his work.

"In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to hide it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it. Note how unbalanced this is, and how it gives the lie to the apparent reasonableness of "let's teach both sides". One side is required to produce evidence, every step of the way. The other side is never required to produce one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have won automatically, the moment the first side encounters a difficulty - the sort of difficulty that all sciences encounter every day, and go to work to solve, with relish.

What, after all, is a gap in the fossil record? It is simply the absence of a fossil which would otherwise have documented a particular evolutionary transition. The gap means that we lack a complete cinematic record of every step in the evolutionary process. But how incredibly presumptuous to demand a complete record, given that only a minuscule proportion of deaths result in a fossil anyway.

The equivalent evidential demand of creationism would be a complete cinematic record of God's behaviour on the day that he went to work on, say, the mammalian ear bones or the bacterial flagellum - the small, hair-like organ that propels mobile bacteria. Not even the most ardent advocate of intelligent design claims that any such divine videotape will ever become available.

Biologists, on the other hand, can confidently claim the equivalent "cinematic" sequence of fossils for a very large number of evolutionary transitions. Not all, but very many, including our own descent from the bipedal ape Australopithecus. And - far more telling - not a single authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water."

[Omzig]

For space flight restricted to our Solar system, Newtonian physics is adequate.

Well, many people will disagree with this statement. Quote: "...a great deal of thought has gone into the problem and all of the known special and general relativistic effects have been accounted for if they are predicted to be big enough to be important."

I worked in this field about 15 years ago and still have my notebooks - relativity corrections are definitely used in orbital software, but I will admit that they are very tiny!

Just a reminder about what we are talking here, Newton's Fg = G(m1*m2/d*d) is a simple formula saying that the force of gravity is dependent on the mass of the two bodies and the square of the distance between them (and a gravitational constant G).

[Dax]

Yep, I agree. Space Technology really advanced since the Apollo Days of the late 60's.

[Dax]

Just a reminder about what we are talking here, Newton's Fg = G(m1*m2/d*d) is a simple formula saying that the force of gravity is dependent on the mass of the two bodies and the square of the distance between them (and a gravitational constant G).

And that's just about all that's necessary to get a rocket off the ground.

PS This is not really my field

Dax

[Omzig]

Yep, I agree. Space Technology really advanced since the Apollo Days of the late 60's.

Absolutely. The Guidance and Navigation computer used in the Apollo missions was too primitive. The program memory was a rope of ferrite cores, specially wound at Raytheon. Due to the processing limitations, it had some very dodgy features, such as the "Gimbal Lock" light seen below - it would illuminate when the internal orientation system (based on Euler angles - not quaternions, which is the current fashion) would calculate itself into a corner (middle angle bigger than 70 degrees) and halt itself until overriding manual inputs were provided...

[Dax]

Thanks Omzig, I've learned something here!

On a lighter note; the Apollo astronauts must have been brave people as well as excellent pilots, against today's standards the navigation system you show above is primitive indeed...

Cheers,

Dax

[Dax]

I'd like to share the following quote from that giant of science, Sir Isaac Newton, a bright chap even by the standards of this forum. It's taken from "Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his Writings" (Hafner Publishing Company, 1953):

Hi Patty

A few other interesting things about Newton

* He was a very complex man. Despite his scientific background, he was, and remained intensely religious throughout his life. He was also not a very nice type of person. (In Newton's context, religious principles per se, should not be confused with charitable Christian principles - there is a difference.) He could be very brusque and a bit ant-social, and even in his Cambridge days in the Lucasian Chair, he was quite a recluse. He also seemed a bit conceited and jealous of his reputation, hence his action of his appointment of his successor to the Lucasian Chair with someone who was mediocre to say the least.

* His accomplishments in Physics in respect of Gravity were not his only accomplishment. He is credited with the development of Calculus, although some historians believe that Leibniz, (a German mathematician?) should also share some credit for Calculus. He is also credited with developing/discovering the formula and calculations to calculate the orbit (perimeter), area, and diameter etc. of ellipses, especially the elliptical properties of the orbits of planets.

* The story about the calculation of ellipses goes like this:

Christopher Wren (artchitect), Edmund Halley (astronomer) and Robert Hooke (mathematician) were discussing the possibility that an inverse square law of attraction implied elliptical orbits, but Wren and Halley could not prove it. According to Hooke he could, but refused to share his knowledge with them. Halley then went and saw Newton, who told him that the theory of an inverse square law is correct (Kepler has proved that the planets' orbits are ellipses in any case) but that he (Newton) did not know how to calculate orbits (ellipses). A rather dejected Halley returned to London, only to receive a treatise from Newton a few months later in which Halley's question about the calculation of ellipses were answered. This was quite a feat for Newton. He developed these calculations without the aid of a computer while the slide ruler has only recently been developed. For all practical purposes he must have done the work with pen and paper by candlelight! ( To have an approximate idea of the complexity of this accomplishment, keep in mind the difference in calculating the circumference of a circle as opposed to calculating the orbit"circumference" of an ellipse - the one is easy while the other is a bit more involved.

Cheers,

Dax

[Patty]

Thanks, Dax, for the information on Newton. Conceited, jealous etc. ..... sounds very human!

Interestingly, that other big name in science, Albert Einstein, also believed in God ... though he rejected much of what the Bible says about God. Einstein said:

"The harmony of natural law ... reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systemic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

[Dax]

Thanks, Dax, for the information on Newton. Conceited, jealous etc. ..... sounds very human!

Interestingly, that other big name in science, Albert Einstein, also believed in God ... though he rejected much of what the Bible says about God. Einstein said:

"The harmony of natural law ... reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systemic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Then there was his remark to Niels Bohr to the effect that .."God does not play dice with the universe"

Another famous scientist (was it Descartes?) who said that " it makes sense to believe in God, what if you die and you did NOT believe, and there IS a God after all?"

My quote may not be 100% correct but it should be close

Cheers,

Dax

[Omzig]

Dax, I think you may be having in mind Pascal's Wager? Of course this logic suffers from a number of problems such as trying to avoid the "Wrong Hell", but it's something that has been discussed here, no scratch that, it wasn't a discussion, more like two parties stating their opposing manifestos

As for Einstein, from the horse's mouth:

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism

PS: I don't really see the point of trying to justify a particular belief by associating scientists with it. Belief is something personal and is fine by itself - as long as it keeps one happy and doesn't harm others.

[Theophilus]

These quotes from leading scientists have helped to dispel the misconception that only those ignorant of science believe that we were created.

[Dax]

Dax, I think you may be having in mind Pascal's Wager? Of course this logic suffers from a number of problems such as trying to avoid the "Wrong Hell", but it's something that has been discussed here, no scratch that, it wasn't a discussion, more like two parties stating their opposing manifestos

Yep, I knew it was a French scientist from the time of the Enlightenment, but them my memory got the better of me.

And as for Albert E, I agree about his Atheism, but his remark to Bohr can also be a bit misleading, on face value he might be mistaken for referring to the God of the Bible,

Cheers,

Dax

[woodag]

I believe Einstein also said something like "Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not."

I don't take that or "God does not play dice with the universe" as any indication that Einstein believed in a supreme being, just as I don't jump to conclusions when I hear somebody say "Thank God I'm an atheist!".

Another quote from a famous person:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

- Samuel Clemens, otherwise known as Mark Twain.

Edit: Get my story straight - I just can't read!!!

Edited August 13, 2009 by woodag