Gravity – the god of our Age

Throughout history, human beings have had the tendency to reject their Creator, and replace Him in their lives with gods of their own making.  From the Greek and Roman pantheons, to the Egyptian sun-god, people would rather worship a god that they create than the God who created them.  Such false gods always have the following characteristics.  (1) They are attributed one or more characteristics or powers that belong only to the Living God, especially a power over some aspect of nature.  (2) They are given allegiance, worship, or reverence above God in at least some way.  (3) They are created either physically or conceptually by man. (4) They are not the Living God, the Creator of all things. Continue reading

The Newton Papers

The Institute for Creation Research must be Isaac Newton’s biggest fans. Why else would the thrice-weekly-pseudoscientific-report-on-last-fortnight’s-news (on average – this is from last month) for Friday the 23rd be called Israeli Library Digitizes Newton’s Theological Works? Why else would they care?

A section of the manuscripts published Continue reading


Yes, folks: That's a Video!

I’m getting the impression that the That’s a Fact series is now reduced to just reusing old ICR material and reformatting it for video consumption. This current video – Isaac Newton – is seemingly taken from an old Acts & Facts series, Man of Science, Man of God. As you can probably already guess, the series is based around the idea that they have all these famous scientists who were religious. For the video series at least they have started with Newton – in my opinion this was not a very good choice.

(They’ve managed to find a way to prevent me embedding the videos, the bastards – however other videos on other posts seem to be still working. Hence I have put the video below anyway in the hope that this is only temporary. You can see the video on their site here regardless. Depending on how they’ve done it, it may be viewable below on feed readers. [Edit: Nope, but that raises my hopes that it will have to be lifted for Rhonda Forlow to be able to use it.] [Edit 2: It works now])

Before I begin it is worth pointing out that commenting on the videos has resumed, and Dr Shorey is back commenting on them again, like so:

Glad to see the ICR put comments back up. Also glad to see a completely factual “That’s a Fact”. I don’t see what point being made is though. Newton definitely believed the Bible was the word of God and wrestled with the oddities. Newton was also a really unpleasant undividual socially, did very mean things to Leibniz, stuck needles in his eye socket so see how it affected his vision, and his comment about the initial motion of the planets was destroyed by Kant and Le Place. Kant qualitatively, and Le Place quantitatively pointed out that you don’t need to worry about initial starting of planetary motion when you apply Newtonian physics to a concept known as the Nebular Hypothesis. Newton actually destroyed the idea that you needed angels to push the planets around, and Kant killed the idea that you needed supernatural forces to start the planets’ motions off to begin with. We can also note that Newton’s ideas of space as a stage on which we walk, and time as a river that runs along side us was superceded by Einstein’s ideas of relativity which conceives of us all being temporally and spatially extended, and Einstien definitely said he was an atheist. Gee. argument from scientific authority doesn’t work for anyone. So what is the point here? Look we have one on our side and ignore all the scientists who aren’t on the side of creationism? I call this cherry piking the data set of scientists. My final assessment is this is misleading work by the ICR that violates the 9th commandment, again.

There isn’t all that much to add to Shorey’s comment, but I’ll do so anyway:
Continue reading