It is interesting to note that Isaac Newton was a homosexual.
It is interesting to note that Isaac Newton was a homosexual.
E = mc^2 + G =m1 m2/r^2 wrote:
It is interesting to note that Isaac Newton was a homosexual.
It's interesting, but there's not much solid evidence for it. There *is* a fairly good amount of evidence that he died a virgin; and some researchers have recently speculated that he may have had Asperger's (which could certainly contribute to the virgin status).
That type of speculation is asinine. Why? Because "western society" at least how we define it now based on judeo-christian ideas has had issues with homosexuality. Now Newton had an "intense relationship" with a fellow mathematician that when the "friendship" ended Newton had a nervous breakdown. Heterosexual men when they are no longer friends with other male friends don't have so called nervous breakdowns. Perhaps Newton died a virgin in regards to females but not with the male kind. So what if he was a homosexual?! How does that diminish anything? Newton didn't have Asperger's, this isn't the show The Big Bang Theory.
Polesmokers unite!
Philly Pharts wrote:
I have serious doubts that Newton was a fag, as much as some perverts would love to believe it's true.
How is being a "fag" perverted?
Newton had ample opportunity to discover evolution, but didn't, whereas Darwin was one for one. I guess Newton had his hands full inventing ridged coins at the Mint.
agr wrote:
right with god wrote:Both are heretics...hoohoohoo...ahaaaaaaaHERETICS!!! BURN THE WITCHES!!!!
Speaking of heretics, this reminds me (by a natural and easy transition) that Sir Thomas More (aka Saint Thomas More, to some) was an enthusiastic burner of heretics.
Fortunately, Newton lived more than a century after More. Newton's religious views were certainly heretical, so he was careful about them, but at least he didn't have to contend with Killer ("Man for All Seasons") More.
Darwin was the smarter than than Newton.
E = mc^2 + G =m1 m2/r^2 wrote:
How is being a "fag" perverted?
repeated, futile attempts to procreate by copulating with the digestive system of another man.
ah, still clinging to 19th century theories, are we? Thank goodness most other science discplines have progressed..
Let's see - which is better, water or air?
By the way, there was a lot more to Darwin than his Origin of Species. See, for example, his literally groundbreaking work on the humble, industrious little earthworm.
E = mc^2 + G =m1 m2/r^2 wrote:
... Now Newton had an "intense relationship" with a fellow mathematician that when the "friendship" ended Newton had a nervous breakdown. Heterosexual men when they are no longer friends with other male friends don't have so called nervous breakdowns. Perhaps Newton died a virgin in regards to females but not with the male kind. ...
Sheer speculation. Newton was socially inept, quite possibly because he was just so much smarter than everyone else. The fact that he had one close relationship with a mathematician was probably very significant in his life, simply to have some reasonable human interaction. Regardless of whether this was a homosexual relationship, losing that one close friend could easily lead to a nervous breakdown for one who was so socially isolated in the first place. Thus, the homosexual angle that you proffer has no logical basis.
I support both evolution and the law of gravity, and if that is all Sir Isaac did, maybe you could call it a tie.
But, that's NOT all Newton did. The Principia is arguably the most important book of any kind ever written, certainly the most important in the field of science.
The better question would be:
Who was the better Scientist -- Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein?
coach d wrote:
...
The better question would be:
Who was the better Scientist -- Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein?
They are in a tie for second greatest scientist of all time.
It's debatable whether you can call Archimedes a scientist when what we know today as the scientific method would not be invented for roughly 2000 years. Mathematician, yes. Scientist, no. Same thing goes for other mathematicians like Euclid.
how do you reconcile your 'support' for evolution in light of the laws it contradicts, i.e. 2nd law of thermodynamics?
coach d wrote:
It's debatable whether you can call Archimedes a scientist when what we know today as the scientific method would not be invented for roughly 2000 years. Mathematician, yes. Scientist, no. Same thing goes for other mathematicians like Euclid.
INCORRECT!
I am not only the greatest mathematician of all time but also the greatest scientist with achievements in physics and astronomy that exceeded those of my contemporaries by orders of magnitude.
coach d wrote:It's debatable whether you can call Archimedes a scientist when what we know today as the scientific method would not be invented for roughly 2000 years.
If I may use the same (idiotic) logic...
One cannot possibly callid Euclid a mathematician because the number zero, negative numbers, complex numbers (and much, much more!) were not invented in his time. And also because the term mathematician wasn't used. He and all his other learned contemoraries called themselves natural philosophers, not mathematicians or scientists.
DWIGHT SCHRUTE wrote:
how do you reconcile your 'support' for evolution in light of the laws it contradicts, i.e. 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Explain to me how evolution contradics the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
No. Do a little homework & demonstrate you have some rudimentary working knowledge of thermodynamics first. Then we can discuss.
E = mc^2 + G =m1 m2/r^2 wrote:Explain to me how evolution contradics the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
The idea here is that according to the second "law" (quotes intended to emphasize my own distaste for claiming "laws" of nature) of thermodynamics, the universe is constantly moving toward ever greater disorder. By contrast, evolution implies the creation of order from disorder, supposedly in conflict with the aforementioned "law."
Fairly simple-minded argument, but a common one.