Well of course it does. But he was still a Christian, as were all Arians. But sure, it’s evidence that the story was made up.
Blame the victim, sure.
We disagree.
The rest of your response does not seem relevant to me.
You’re free to pick your own definition of words. But this is completely irrelevant to the point I’m making, which is by most modern evangelical Christian definitions Newton was not a Christian. I don’t know @colewd’s background but I’m guessing that it’s one of either modern evangelicalism, fundamentalism, or Roman Catholicism, all of which would not regard Newton as a proper Christian.
Hi Daniel
I would consider myself a recent Christian and not stuck on any real orthodoxy at this point.My wife is an episcopal priest and that is the church I attend. I think your argument and @John_Harshman’s have shown this story if attributed to Newton has been, as a minimum, embellished.
Reading quotes from Newton it does appear that he would have been capable of such an argument. I think both you and John make a solid case that it may have been completely made up.
1 Like
It’s hardly my own definition. But I agree that the relevant definition would be whatever Bill goes by or what the writer of the story went by. So Newton was no true Christian.
At a minimum, made up from whole cloth. Still, the fact that you are willing to admit even that much is an achievement.
On what basis do you think it was entirely made up and you can eliminate embellishment as a possibility?
Hey, I thought you said we’d made a solid case. Did you forget already?
1 Like
What did you mean by “At a minimum made up from the whole cloth.” ? Does this say it is definitely made up from the whole cloth? You have not made this case.
Interesting thing is the window for Issac to have had this conversation was small.
Friend of astronomers such as Sir Isaac Newton and Edmond Halley, he created the first mechanical Orrery, in 1713. The invention was presented to Charles Boyle, the 4th Earl of Orrery, and from which all such tellurians and planetariums take their name. The Orrery overturned the conventions of watchmaking and astronomy…and this was 300 years ago.
So it would have been unthinkable for GRAHAM to miss the 300th anniversary of the invention of the Orrery. That is why it presents the highest level of innovation and technology in watchmaking, with its three dimensional Tourbillon Orrery.
Set in motion by Christophe Claret Manufacture in Le Locle, Switzerland, the Orrery includes the Moon, Earth, Mars and the Sun based on a 300-year calendar. The Sun, represented by a pink gold (18K) hand-engraved Tourbillon bridge with two Phoenix heads, celebrates the decoration used by George Graham.
The year counter on the case back enables the wearer to identify and make the corrections for the planets (Moon: 7 years, Earth: 1156 years, Mars: 25 years).
The wrist Orrery developed by GRAHAM will be functional for the next 300 years. It will be in the hands of future generations to create the third Orrery in 2313. Designed to last a lifetime and longer.
This same story appeared in the 1904 publication Annals Of Saint Joseph with the scientist being identified as 17th century Father Athanasius Kirscher.
Your credibility detector needs serious work Bill.
1 Like
Well, that’s a good place to end the discussion, then.
What was your point in linking to that pdf? Or did you have one other than it mentions “orrery” and “Newton”?
No comments Bill?
To support the claim the first modern version was from George Graham a friend of Newton. The original version of the Orrery is in a science museum in London.
I traced the story to a creation book in 1974 that got the story form archives at the University of Minnesota. The skeptic that researched these, Tom McIver, claims that the version that came from the creationists was embellished as you and @dga471 pointed out. I have found another version that confirms your claims.
How is that relevant to the story?
We didn’t point out that it was embellished. We suggested that it was fiction. “Embellished” is your weasel word.
It adds credibility that Newton owned a Orrery.
Embellishment an accurate description of the available facts. You do not have evidence it is completely made up. @dga471 argued that there were inaccuracies to the claim not that the claim was completely false if I understood him correctly.
@Timothy_Horton posted evidence that this type of argument existed before Newton. Newton was a serious student of theology and may have derived the argument from the Jesuit Priest that Tim found.
Or neither incident ever happened and religious proponents made up the original tale of Athanasius Kirscher which later religious proponents changed to Newton since most people have never heard of Kirscher. Seriously Bill, is there any fantastic anti-science story you won’t swallow uncritically? 
BTW Bill, the earliest time this story appears in print is the 1904 version I posted. That pretty much tells you when the tale was first dreamed up.
2 Likes
How are you sure this is the first time the story is documented?
Why do you think this is an anti science story?
The Halls cite their source as Minnesota Technolog, the student engineering journal of the University of Minnesota Institute of Technology. (2) Many versions of the tale that don’t cite the Halls instead copy this reference from them, often mis-citing it as “Minnesota Technology.” I checked the original Technolog issue; it is the version quoted above. …
Do you know of any earlier versions? Produce one or agree the 1904 is the oldest known version.
Where do you think the author got the story? Are you claiming he made it up?