Thugnificent did newton ever succeed in his creationism and his philosophers stone?...
If creationism or an act of "creation" cannot be substantiated and/or demonstrated why call it "science"?
This is basically a masquerade...where you claim "science is being hijacked"when you're the one spreading misinformation.

davidylan:


no attempt to proffer your evidence... just more senseless personal attacks. I notice you did not take on thugnificent's even more detailed take down of your own ignorance. I wonder why.

Do you really want me address thugnificent?

OK then. I will.

Dear thugnificent, I am tempted to invoke the "S" word on you, But because you are kinda new here, I will be lenient.
You see, our job here is to carry a long whip to stamp out public idiocy, or at the least, reduce it. Davidylan should tell you. He is a regular beneficiary .

Now, my warning to you.
Don't you ever claim that Isaac Newton was a creationist , talkless of invoking such in a public discussion. I am saying this for your own good.

If I have to explain to you why, then I will forced to discipline you with our rod of finely measured common sense.

Thugnificent:
Sir, your premise was quite outlandish.

instead of pulling a red herring why not highlight it?

I get it that most secular scientists use the term "pseudoscience" to classify creationist/intelligent design arguments forgetting that evolution, big bang, abiogenesis and all "origins" theories are all pseudoscience

Really?...let me list a few qualities of pseudoscience,tell me if "creation science" has none of it.

1. Vague terminology: what is a "kind" in creationism?

2. Lack of predictive power: what predictions does creationism give?

3. Untestable hypothesis: How can one test or demonstrate that things are "created" ex nihilo.

4. Lack of data: What data could you draw from creationism that can be tested in a setting,would dipping birds blood on people cure leprosy as claimed in the bible?

to say the least. firstly, the biogenesis theory that life can only come from life was proved by Louis Pasteur

lol....you're not only terribly misinformed you're also contradicting your belief,where life spontaneously arises from dust(non-life)...
And to put it in perspective he(pasteur) held that stance when he proved that dead matter(meat) didn't spontaneously generate new life but was being contaminated by "continuing life"(flies)...herego life comes from life,a living thing is subject to produce other living things by either reproduction or contamination by continuing life in the environment.

a creationist hearby dispelling the theory of spontaneous generation which was partly the bedrock of abiogenesis.

Read my above post....
Ironically you are arguing against "spontaneous generation" when your bible gives an account of how a being speaks things spontaneously into existence in what can only be described as an incantation spell...

Now back to evolution, the so called TOE hasn't been able to explain obvious "missing links" and the so called transitional fossils most notably the Archaeopteryx was proven to be a fraud.

How do we know if something is a transition form?
When creationist A says it is and creationist B disagrees...bottomline is that to deny a transitional form creationist have to endure a cognitive dissonance where it can never be admitted that a creature is one,it is either A or B and that again highlights their dishonesty
And an astronomer has no say in paleontology,just like Richard dawkins has no say in computer science....so fred hoyle has no say in something outside of his field...

In a nut shell, creationist have made the greatest impact in science so it is foolhardy to term creation science as "pseudoscience" while inane theories are having a field day because they don't involve God in the equation.

Take a good look at your own comment....You said they've done a great deal for science, therefore we should accept their "creation science"? lol
Might as well say I should accept alchemy because newton proposed the theory of gravity...
Until you can demonstrate "creation science" it'll still be pseudoscience...

plaetton:


Do you really want me address thugnificent?

OK then. I will.

Dear thugnificent, I am tempted to invoke the "S" word on you, But because you are kinda new here, I will be lenient.
You see, our job here is to carry a long whip to stamp out public idiocy, or at the least, reduce it. Davidylan should tell you. He is a regular beneficiary .

Now, my warning to you.
Don't you ever claim that Isaac Newton was a creationist a day then try to use it in a public discussion. I am saying this for your own good.

If I have to explain why, then I will discipline you with our rod of finely measured common sense.

No attempt to explain or provide evidence... just more personal insults. Good luck.

davidylan:


No attempt to explain or provide evidence... just more personal insults. Good luck.

Davidylan, when someone of your academic Caleb re publicly declare Isaac Newton a creationist, it dumbfounded me in no small measure.

Pls think about Isaac Newton again and then tell me again that he was a creationist.
I am actually giving you a chance to think, think deeper. Pls.

davidylan:


the problem with Ray's comment (which also exposes the bankruptcy of many here who are unable to think outside the box) is that if the creation of earth was simply an issue of evolution (survival of the fittest), then what is the evolutionary benefit of [i]sexua[/i]l reproduction? I remember this question came up a while back and no one here was able to answer.

plaetton tried to actually. But he only ended up embarrassing himself and running away. That is in fact the only thing they do when they are forced into serious arguments these days. They either embarrass themselves or foresee their embarrassment and disappear for a short period of time before emerging once more with puerile threads such as this

plaetton:

Davidylan, when someone of your academic Caleb re publicly declare Isaac Newton a creationist, it dumbfounded me in no small measure.

Pls think about Isaac Newton again and then tell me again that he was a creationist.
I am actually giving you a chance to think, think deeper. Pls.

How pathetic of you Plaetton. Resorting to nonsense methods of invoking inner confusion and mental rigmaroling to prove your point?

And yes. Sir Isaac Newton believed in a creator.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

plaetton:


Do you really want me address thugnificent?

OK then. I will.

Dear thugnificent, I am tempted to invoke the "S" word on you, But because you are kinda new here, I will be lenient.
You see, our job here is to carry a long whip to stamp out public idiocy, or at the least, reduce it. Davidylan should tell you. He is a regular beneficiary .

Now, my warning to you.
Don't you ever claim that Isaac Newton was a creationist , talkless of invoking such in a public discussion. I am saying this for your own good.

If I have to explain to you why, then I will forced to discipline you with our rod of finely measured common sense.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/converging-paths-truth/brief-survey-sir-isaac-newtons-views-religion
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

davien:
Thugnificent did newton ever succeed in his creationism and his philosophers stone?...
If creationism or an act of "creation" cannot be substantiated and/or demonstrated why call it "science"?
This is basically a masquerade...where you claim "science is being hijacked"when you're the one spreading misinformation.

an act of creation should be substantiated? Lol. The very technology you are using is an act of creation. The very clothes you wear. The nuclear energy that now gives us electricity, the painting hanging on the wall of your bedroom, all the advances and achievements of the sciences and the arts, the well-trimmed lawn in front of your house. All these are substantiated acts of creation. Don't be foolish. Man has been creating for millennia now. And it is creativity and inquiry that forms the bedrock of science. Not nonsense self-insulting fantastical speculations like the evolution of all things from a form of life.

Joshthefirst:
an act of creation should be substantiated? Lol. The very technology you are using is an act of creation. The very clothes you wear. The nuclear energy that now gives us electricity, the painting hanging on the wall of your bedroom, all the advances and achievements of the sciences and the arts, the well-trimmed lawn in front of your house. All these are substantiated acts of creation. Don't be foolish. Man has been creating for millennia now. And it is creativity and inquiry that forms the bedrock of science. Not nonsense self-insulting fantastical speculations like the evolution of all things from a form of life.

joshthefirst we don't create things we use "starting materials" to make things, we're familiar with that.
What we're not familiar with is a hocus pocus "creation" where anything can be led into existence ex nihilo(from nothing)...
And why are you pointing to the pretty side of nature and human activity?...Is the hiv/aids virus not a creation too?
Now about evolution....let me put it this way,you believe we all share a common ancestor that is adam and eve correct?

Next up on our list of creationist charlatans' is kent hovind.

Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American
young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist. Hovind
has spoken on creation science and has aimed to
convince listeners to reject scientific theories of
evolution , geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his
interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the
Bible . Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific
evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized
by young Earth creationist organizations such as
Answers in Genesis .

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Kent hovind is a convicted charlatan who tried to exempt tax laws...
This would have been irrelevant(to the position of creationism) if it had not been the cause of his arrest..

During his 2006 criminal trial, the federal government said the organization does not have the proper licensing nor is it registered as a nonprofit, which resulted in legal troubles mentioned below. In May 1999, Eric Hovind, Kent Hovind's son, joined Creation Science Evangelism and his daughter, Marlissa, was training to become Kent Hovind's secretary.

Then in January 2007, Kent Hovind was sentenced to ten years in prison following his 58 felony convictions and Eric Hovind announced that he would run Creation Science
Evangelism due to his father's incarceration.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Among kent hovinds exploits have been what he has termed the "hovind theory",it represents an apologetics used to meld biblical scripture and observations...

The video below is what it entails...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY0rj-TEx4o

https://archive.org/details/KentHovindTheHovindTheory
It's was long rebutted as pseudoscience,in the link above...

In his seminar he starts off with the creationist basic features of dishonesty..

#1 Equivocation

#2 Misinformation

#3 Arrogance

#4 Basic science denialism

This was his introduction...



“There are four great questions that man tries to answer in this life. These are called the four great philosophical worldview questions. Every religion in the world, including Atheism, which is a religion, every religion tries to answer these four questions.”


Already he starts with misinformation and equivocation that atheism is a religion, you'd notice that till this day followers of creationist repeat this and make remarks about atheism being a "belief","philosophy",etc

davien:
joshthefirst we don't create things we use "starting materials" to make things, we're familiar with that.
What we're not familiar with is a hocus pocus "creation" where anything can be led into existence ex nihilo(from nothing)...

Aside from the fact that what you wrote there is false and shows you do not even have a true concept of creation, I am also not familiar with the hocus pocus ruse of evolution you deify.
You can prove it substantially please. Or you could just go and hide as usual. You and plaetton are quite good at that.

Order cannot come out of chaos without an existential force and power bringing it about.

Joshthefirst:
Aside from the fact that what you wrote there is false and shows you do not even have a true concept of creation, I am also not familiar with the hocus pocus ruse of evolution you deify.
You can prove it substantially please. Or you could just go and hide as usual. You and plaetton are quite good at that.

Order cannot come out of chaos without an existential force and power bringing it about.

Part with your ad hominems and give concise definitions....what exactly do you consider "order" and "chaos" because time and time again I keep telling you things like dunes are ordered and yet where brought together by chaotic sand storms...
Many things are "orderly" and yet are caused by chaotic systems...
And even still this is a non sequitur(no point), because "orderly" or not a "god" still has to be demonstrated before attaching any feature of nature to it.

What you're basically saying is analogous of being in a hot room and then concluding preconceived ideas that an invisible dragon is heating up the room....You can claim "it's a dragon/god" all you want but without substantial proof you have nothing.

Joshthefirst:
How pathetic of you Plaetton. Resorting to nonsense methods of invoking inner confusion and mental rigmaroling to prove your point?

And yes. Sir Isaac Newton believed in a creator.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

You big mouth with your lilliputian minds.
You still don't get it, do you?
Think think.

davien:
Part with your ad hominems and give concise definitions....what exactly do you consider "order" and "chaos" because time and time again I keep telling you things like dunes are ordered and yet where brought together by chaotic sand storms...
Many things are "orderly" and yet are caused by chaotic systems...
And even still this is a non sequitur(no point), because "orderly" or not a "god" still has to be demonstrated before attaching any feature of nature to it.

What you're basically saying is analogous of being in a hot room and then concluding preconceived ideas that an invisible dragon is heating up the room....You can claim "it's a dragon/god" all you want but without substantial proof you have nothing.

Lol @ hot tub heated by a mighty invisible dragon.

davien:
Part with your ad hominems and give concise definitions....what exactly do you consider "order" and "chaos" because time and time again I keep telling you things like dunes are ordered and yet where brought together by chaotic sand storms...
Many things are "orderly" and yet are caused by chaotic systems...
And even still this is a non sequitur(no point), because "orderly" or not a "god" still has to be demonstrated before attaching any feature of nature to it.

What you're basically saying is analogous of being in a hot room and then concluding preconceived ideas that an invisible dragon is heating up the room....You can claim "it's a dragon/god" all you want but without substantial proof you have nothing.

Please give an example of a purposeful orderly system brought about by chaos. Don't give sand dunes or lightning for examples as they are just physical manifestations of haphazard energy. Give me substantial examples and stop using base cop-outs.

And your hot room analogy is also puerile. What I'm basically saying is analogous of being in a house in cold barren and dark Antarctica with a heater and water and light. I logically conclude that these things did not appear suddenly as a result of reckless and wild polar winds.

Joshthefirst:
Please give an example of a purposeful orderly system brought about by chaos. Don't give sand dunes or lightning for examples as they are just physical manifestations of haphazard energy. Give me substantial examples and stop using base cop-outs.

And your hot room analogy is also puerile. What I'm basically saying is analogous of being in a house in cold barren and dark Antarctica with a heater and water and light. I logically conclude that these things did not appear suddenly as a result of reckless and wild polar winds.

Just look at your own words. " physical manifestations of haphazard energy ".
The entire universe is the physical manifestations of haphazard energy.
Da a aah hhh.!!

Joshthefirst:
Please give an example of a purposeful orderly system brought about by chaos. Don't give sand dunes or lightning for examples as they are just physical manifestations of haphazard energy. Give me substantial examples and stop using base cop-outs.

sand dunes are haphazardous energy?
And you claim I'm making a "cop-out", but you're the one telling me not to make an obvious case(in the bolded text)...

Anyway let's consider the demonstrable "kinetic theory of matter" in which all matter is made of molecules(or atoms) in constant motion....

The motions are more chaotic when they have no or less restrictive bonds or with increased temperature...

Without increase in the chaotic nature of this particles,useful energy cannot be obtained...so without the chaotic nature of molecules(or atoms) complex reactions that lead to order will not occur... The sun wouldn't liberate energy without the chaotic process of fusion,you couldn't live without the combustion(for digestion) and assimilation of oxygen to various parts of your body...etc

So aren't those chaotic processes that lead to order,or do you have to blacklist them too?

And your hot room analogy is also puerile.

All you've been doing(which is usual for a creationist) is to deny a response with no counter responses....I'm not surprised though

What I'm basically saying is analogous of being in a house in cold barren and dark Antarctica with a heater and water and light. I logically conclude that these things did not appear suddenly as a result of reckless and wild polar winds.

They sure demonstrably don't,so does "god".
Can you tell us why we have demonstrable evidence for all that except of a being that allegedly conjures matter from absolutely nothing?

plaetton:


Oh gosh!
How do you guys do it?

I mean, how do you manage to you contradic yourself in ONE Single sentence ?


" ID isn't creationism though it strongly suggests creation in a general sense."

What kind of a warped mind can hold two contradictory views in one sentence?
It shows , with a a doubt, that you have no single idea, no iota of knowledge of what you are arguing for or against.
Just a follow follow.


Another moronic statment.
I presume that you know more about the finer points of the law that the Judge, or that you would have made a finer legal representation that the team of Id lawyers?

"IDst say... that his judgement was lifted from ...?
Well then , why haven't you shown us where it was lifted from?
So " IDst are your source and authority ?

Just like I said, Follow follow.
That's what you are.

SMH.

davien:
sand dunes are haphazardous energy?
And you claim I'm making a "cop-out", but you're the one telling me not to make an obvious case(in the bolded text)...

Anyway let's consider the demonstrable "kinetic theory of matter" in which all matter is made of molecules(or atoms) in constant motion....

The motions are more chaotic when they have no or less restrictive bonds or with increased temperature...

Without increase in the chaotic nature of this particles,useful energy cannot be obtained...so without the chaotic nature of molecules(or atoms) complex reactions that lead to order will not occur... The sun wouldn't liberate energy without the chaotic process of fusion,you couldn't live without the combustion(for digestion) and assimilation of oxygen to various parts of your body...etc

So aren't those chaotic processes that lead to order,or do you have to blacklist them too?

All you've been doing(which is usual for a creationist) is to deny a response with no counter responses....I'm not surprised though
They sure demonstrably don't,so does "god".
Can you tell us why we have demonstrable evidence for all that except of a being that allegedly conjures matter from absolutely nothing?

Take a very good look at the bolded. You are quoted as saying the assimilation of oxygen and digestion of food and the liberation of energy by the sun are chaotic processes? . Chaos means disorder. All you've given me here are very purposeful and directed and sustained processes. I'll ignore this then, and wait for more examples.

I should probably deal with this shaa. As it seems you do not even understand the kinetic theory of matter.

The motions are more chaotic when they have no or less restrictive bonds or with increased temperature...

The above is correct, but then you went on to say this:

Without increase in the chaotic nature of this particles,useful energy cannot be obtained...so without the chaotic nature of molecules(or atoms) complex reactions that lead to order will not occur

Energy is random and chaotic by itself in nature. That is readily known. And you've given examples of its manifestations of itself: sand dunes. I even gave another example for you; lightning.

It is only direct channeling and manipulation with sustaining of this force that yields order and useful work. You giving this example is very pathetic and shows the very basal deception I have noted over and over again: hijacking and twisting of scientific definitions to suit your own godless worldview. Quite pathetic.

The "atheists" on this thread are using propaganda techniques to "expose" "creationist propaganda and misinformation"

plaetton:


Just look at your own words. " physical manifestations of haphazard energy ".
The entire universe is the physical manifestations of haphazard energy.
Da a aah hhh.!!

Plaetton with all his proud eloquence is a manifestation of haphazard energy.

Sometimes you speak like a reasoning man, other times you're words are ill-thought out, like a rattling child.

Joshthefirst:
Take a very good look at the bolded. You are quoted as saying the assimilation of oxygen and digestion of food and the liberation of energy by the sun are chaotic processes? . Chaos means disorder. All you've given me here are very purposeful and directed and sustained processes. I'll ignore this then, and wait for more examples.

My writing style excludes commas sometimes,surely you know that by now

And now you equivocate chaos as disorder,which means you typically think its entropy.

And how is any of that relevant,because a purpose is what people tend to think things are for....you are basically offering the straw-man of "purpose" as though that invalidates my statements.

Go in depth with your replies and be very precise.


Consider a metabolic system in which it possesses useful energy,for it to be less useful it has to used for work....thereby decreasing the amount of useful energy and vice versa increasing entropy(entropy is the amount of less useful energy by the way)..

This system would be ordered,as metabolic systems are most often sites of combustion...this permits liberation of useful energy to it's surroundings permitting an increase in order.

The above description is befitting the earths core,it liberates useful energy to power plate tectonics which in turn shape the earth or in "creationist talk" make it orderly.

I should probably deal with this shaa. As it seems you do not even understand the kinetic theory of matter.

The above is correct, but then you went on to say this:

Energy is random and chaotic by itself in nature.

Lying josh? :O In what way did I go against this?

That is readily known. And you've given examples of its manifestations of itself: sand dunes. I even gave another example for you; lightning.

Oh,so you now suddenly accept the sand dune analogy and have removed your own ban on lightning analogies...

I hope everyone can see the dishonest hypocrisy here...

It is only direct channeling and manipulation with sustaining of this force that yields order and useful work.

So what is channeling and manipulating the earths core?.....

It's heat from its formation that's still driving plate tectonics and as you know,heat is merely the product of the average kinetic energies of atoms,which you admitted are chaotic and random...(your comment below)

" Energy is random and chaotic by itself in nature."

You giving this example is very pathetic and shows the very basal deception I have noted over and over again: hijacking and twisting of scientific definitions to suit your own godless worldview. Quite pathetic.

Hmmmm lets see here...

You gave ad hominems,I corrected you.

You equivocated words,I highlighted that.

You blatantly lied,I exposed that.

Now who neatly fits the above words you just wrote?

SNCOQ3:
The "atheists" on this thread are using propaganda techniques to "expose" "creationist propaganda and misinformation"

Mention one creationist which I lied about please...

Joshthefirst:
You should be ashamed of yourself.
http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/converging-paths-truth/brief-survey-sir-isaac-newtons-views-religion
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

1) how is it relevant for the topic if or if not Isaac Newton (17th/18th century) believed in a creator?
2) why do creationists never quote any scientists that lived after the 18th century? How about some 21st century cosmologists or evolutionary biologists?
3) i know it's asking too much, but how about actually trying to obtain in-depth knowledge about 21st century science? You don't even understand its most basic principles and yet you "refute" it. That - sorry to say - makes creationists look dumb.
4) i don't care whether or not Newton believed in a creator, it's irrelevant to the topic. BUT: please take the historical context into account when debating such matters. The fact is: during the 17th century it would have been extremely unwise to question the common belief and thus the churches authority publicly. This doesn't mean people didn't do so. It means they would have most likely done so in secret to avoid execution.

Liekiller:


1) how is it relevant for the topic if or if not Isaac Newton (17th/18th century) believed in a creator?
2) why do creationists never quote any scientists that lived after the 18th century? How about some 21st century cosmologists or evolutionary biologists?
3) i know it's asking too much, but how about actually trying to obtain in-depth knowledge about 21st century science? You don't even understand its most basic principles and yet you "refute" it. That - sorry to say - makes creationists look dumb.
4) i don't care whether or not Newton believed in a creator, it's irrelevant to the topic. BUT: please take the historical context into account when debating such matters. The fact is: during the 17th century it would have been extremely unwise to question the common belief and thus the churches authority publicly. This doesn't mean people didn't do so. It means they would have most likely done so in secret to avoid execution.

First, it is very relevant for the topic as it shows that one of the most prominent thinkers who ever lived believed in a creator. Thus showing that belief in a creator does not make one any less of a scientist. Creationists are no less scientists that evolutonists. And I was merely trying to prove plaetton wrong and show up his bold lying.

Your second point makes no sense ma'am. why would I point to an evolutionary biologist for validation as a creationist? And yes, there are very reputable scientists of our modern world who believe in God. Look at the recent debate between ken ham and bill bye and see ken mention some.

And who are you to say I don't even understand the idi.otic philosophies you call science? For your information I was an ardent follower and product of this system you follow before I began to think straight and apply common sense and question what I found out to be my beliefs. Your arrogance is sickening.

And your last point merely shows you know little to nothing about Newton if you think he questioned "common belief" in a creator in secret.

Joshthefirst:
First, it is very relevant for the topic as it shows that one of the most prominent thinkers who ever lived believed in a creator.

And he also believed in alchemy,does that make him correct on all counts?
Stephen Hawking even with his discovery of "Hawkin radiation" about black-holes,would be laughed to scorn if he believed the earth was flat.

Thus showing that belief in a creator does not make one any less of a scientist. Creationists are no less scientists that evolutonists.

Doesn't it strike you as odd,that as scientists that they were..... they only made relevant contributions following empirical methods?
No contribution whatsoever was made in the alleged "creation science" because it isn't a scientific proposition whatsoever.
And why do you keep using the term "evolutionist"? when evolution is not an "ism"?
This is another dishonest tactic...

And I was merely trying to prove plaetton wrong and show up his bold lying.

Okay,did you succeed? or did you as usual give no coherent answer?

Your second point makes no sense ma'am. why would I point to an evolutionary biologist for validation as a creationist? And yes, there are very reputable scientists of our modern world who believe in God. Look at the recent debate between ken ham and bill bye and see ken mention some.

Is ken ham a scientist? and would it even matter?....I could also list scientists who also believe the earth is flat and 9/11 was a conspiracy, does that make it true?

And who are you to say I don't even understand the idi.otic philosophies you call science? For your information I was an ardent follower and product of this system you follow before I began to think straight and apply common sense and question what I found out to be my beliefs. Your arrogance is sickening.

"ardent follower" you say? since when does one become an ardent follower in science?

You didn't even know the basics of Newton's principles and you're claiming to be an "ardent follower"(which is a ridiculous and fallacious term by the way)

And your last point merely shows you know little to nothing about Newton if you think he questioned "common belief" in a creator in secret.

Well how do you know he didn't?
In an age of "thought police", where you could be killed for not believing what you were told...burning at the stake was the scare tactic christians used then, now it's hell...

Joshthefirst:
First, it is very relevant for the topic as it shows that one of the most prominent thinkers who ever lived believed in a creator. Thus showing that belief in a creator does not make one any less of a scientist. Creationists are no less scientists that evolutonists. And I was merely trying to prove plaetton wrong and show up his bold lying.

Your second point makes no sense ma'am. why would I point to an evolutionary biologist for validation as a creationist? And yes, there are very reputable scientists of our modern world who believe in God. Look at the recent debate between ken ham and bill bye and see ken mention some.

And who are you to say I don't even understand the idi.otic philosophies you call science? For your information I was an ardent follower and product of this system you follow before I began to think straight and apply common sense and question what I found out to be my beliefs. Your arrogance is sickening.

And your last point merely shows you know little to nothing about Newton if you think he questioned "common belief" in a creator in secret.

No it's not relevant. It doesn't even disturb me IF he actually believed in a creator. What disturbs me is that you insinuate that if ONE big thinker believed in a creator there must be a creator. That's no valid point.
You shouldn't refer to modern scientists to "validate yourself as a creationist". But you should definitely do so when you attempt to discuss (or more likely refute) scientific theories. If you have a deep knowledge of any science as you claim you should actually know that you cannot disprove a scientific theory established with scientific methods by stomping on the floor and exclaiming furiously that it's a lie. Neither can you disprove it with so-called creationist science, because that does NOT use scientific methods. So, if you argue against science, then use science to do so. Everything else makes no sense and -sorry to say again - makes you look dumb.

By the way I never said one cannot be a scientist AND believe i a god. But then again to me, "believing in a god" is not limited to being a fanatic young earth christian creationist and thus believing a book written by man in ancient times to be 100% true and accurate.