Pope says God caused the Big Bang

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by bdee, Jan 6, 2011.

  1. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    He says that God caused that and has said in the past that evolution had a guiding hand.

    Seems an acceptance of science and religion. Perhaps the church has taken a step towards making room for science in the world. A good thing. For far too long Christianity, and specifically the Catholic Church, acted a a source of resistance to scientific progress.

    I think the trend has been and will be going forward that there will be a reduced role for religion in explaining how. But there will always be a place for religion in explaining why.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110106/ts_ ... pe_bigbang
     
  2. dcannon1

    dcannon1 New Member

    6,548
    0
    0
    This.

    In the past religion explained the how b/c there wasn't a more reasonable answer available. Now science can provide a better explanation of how and religion can focus on the why.

    The how isn't really the issue anyway, it's the why for most people (except extremists in every religion who want to argue semantics)
     

  3. vanguard

    vanguard New Member

    737
    0
    0
    I believe in the big bang..........GOD said it and BANG it happened :righton: very easy to understand gen 1:1-21 :D
     
  4. kineticmind

    kineticmind يفخر الكافر

    3,938
    1
    38
    I think it's sad that the RCC is willing to deny the authority of Scipture, which even Jesus Christ Himself supported, in order to accommodate theories such as the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution. It's not surprising, though, as I'm fairly certain it was a Catholic Jesuit that originally coined the Big Bang idea. I personally don't believe God was so incompetent that He needed evolution and the Big Bang to bring about the universe and all the life in it.

    Naysayers can tar and feather me all they wish. I spent far too much of my life as an agnostic who put my faith in these theories, and so know that I'll only be ridiculed for maintaining my belief that Genesis is not allegorical. But, then again, I remember I didn't shake many people's faith when I was the one doing the ridiculing. Neither will I let my faith be shaken by anyone else, especially the RCC.
     
  5. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    The growing trend amongst Christians, in an attempt to accommodate scientific and historic findings, is that the Bible was not designed to teach Scientific and Historical truths, but instead it was designed and served best in teaching Spiritual truths.
     
  6. dcannon1

    dcannon1 New Member

    6,548
    0
    0
    Hey whatever you believe, you believe. Like I said, does the "how" we got here really matter?

    No living person will ever know 100% how it all happened. Even if we could undoubtedly prove the big bang theory we can't go any further back as the rules of physics and all ability to measure scientifically cease to exist at that point (at least based on our current physics model) so science can never answer the question of what happened before that and why (unless we make some breakthroughs that are probably not going to happen in our lifetime).

    Isn't the "why" more important?
     
  7. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    62
    48
    According to Japanese creation myth, the Heaven and the Earth were not divided. All the elements of the Heaven and the Earth were entwined and mixed together with one germ of life. It is believed that this germ of life mixed everything together until the lighter part rose and the heavier part sank. It so happened that entire earth was covered with a muddy ocean and there was a chaos in the ocean. From this ocean arose a reed, which grew until it reached the sky. This reed was transformed into a god and the place where the head of the reed touched became the Heaven. This god created many gods including the Gods of Creation such as Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto (the Deity-of-the-August-Center-of-Heaven), Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the High-August-Producing-Wondrous-Deity), and a third god called Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the Divine-Producing-Wondrous-Deity). Izanagi and Izanami were the gods that were created last. They were the most remarkable of all the gods.

    The aborigines of Australia belong to one of the oldest surviving cultures in the world. They propose the Dream time concept of creation. According to this creation story, land was once flat and barren. There were no animals, birds, trees or bushes, water or man. Baiame, 'maker of things', is believed to have brought the dream time ancestors from beneath the earth and sea and over it. The ancestors wandered over the land and soon became a part of interesting adventures. They met other ancestors, argued, encountered strange creatures and fought battles. Each event gave the earth a new shape; hills and mountains rose and plants grew. When something wrong was done, the Rainbow Snake would punish the ancestors. But the Rainbow Snake was not only vengeful and is also referred to as the Old Woman, who taught humans how to talk and dig for food. When the Emu ancestor and the Eagle ancestor fought, the eagle took one of emu's eggs and threw it into the air. The egg burst into flames, forming the sun. The dream time ancestors decided how different creatures should look and behave and how secret ceremonies were to be performed. The aborigines believe that the dream time is not over, nor are the ancestors dead.

    Christianity believes that God has three: the Father, Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Genesis 1 and 2 in the Old Testament of the Bible tells the Christian story of creation. In the beginning, God's spirit roamed the universe and waters and God willed light and darkness. On the second day God created heaven and separated water from the earth. On the third day, he raised dry land and created plants. On the fourth day, God made the light 'day' and lesser light 'night'. On the fifth day, he created the creatures of the sea and air. On the sixth day, God created all kinds of living creatures on earth and made man in his own image. He gave them authority over all living things. On the seventh day or sabbath, God rested. At first, the first man, Adam, and the first woman Eve, lived in heaven, in the Garden of Eden. They were forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge - of good and evil. But the serpent tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, which she in turn gave Adam. They realized that they were naked and hid from God. But God knew of their sin and drove them to earth, to toil. Christian believe that man is the most important of God's creations. They refer to the 'fall' to find answers to suffering and death.

    Islam or Muslim religion states that when God wants to create something, he says "Be", and it becomes. This was how God created the world and the heavens. He created creatures that walk, swim, crawl and fly, angels, the sun, moon and the stars. The Holy Quran says that God caused it to rain in torrents, and generated corm, grapes, olives, palms, fruit trees and the grass. Then He ordered the angels to bring seven handfuls of soil of different colors and modeled man. He breathed life and power into Adam, the first man and Eve, the first woman. God gave Adam control over the earth. However, Iblis, an angel refused to bow down before Adam, as God had commanded. When God forbade the couple to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree, the evil one tempted them to disobey God. They did and God cast them out of Paradise, down to earth. But merciful God provided them with means of food, drink and shelter.




    That's just four of dozens, if not hundreds of "creation myths" none can be proven any more true than the others.
     
  8. spector

    spector New Member

    1,849
    0
    0
    No need, buddy. Anyone who fails to "believe" in evolution can perform the following test:

    Infect yourself with a modern strain of a gram-positive bacteria (TB, MRSA, etc) and then treat yourself using only penicillin -- no modern antibiotics allowed. If science is wrong and evolution does not occur, then there should be no drug-resistant strains of bacteria and you will be cured. If not, well, then you'll get to have a chat with whatever god you like.

    Also, jumping out of planes without a chute can test the theory of gravity.
     
  9. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,374
    555
    113
    There's no need to attempt anything, as nothing in the Bible contradicts science - some scientists maybe, but not true science. And when the Bible does allude to science, it is always accurate, which is all the more reason why the RCC's persecution of Galileo is bizarre. Nothing in the Bible suggests that the earth is flat.

    Spritual truth, if it is truth at all, must be rooted in reality. If Christ really did not rise from the dead on the third day as Scripture teaches, then He has no power to save anyone. If Adam was not a literal person, then Christ was not either, as Scripture gives the direct geneaology from Adam to Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus.
     
  10. jlcnuke

    jlcnuke New Member

    2,051
    1
    0
    According to the time-line of the Bible the Earth (and the universe for that matter) is 6000 years old. Scientific discoveries show this to be off by a significant amount. Is the Bible wrong on this science or is all of science wrong?

    Another question, if the Bible is never wrong as you suggest, how many people and under what circumstance came to the Tomb for the resurrection?
     
  11. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    You are always going to be able to pole holes in the Bible, such as if Adam and Eve were the first people, then Cain goes off and finds a wife with the people of Nod, where did they come from?

    That's not the point though, the Bible is trying to teach a story between God and and his people. It consistently shows a pattern of a covenant, the breaking of that contract, punishment, repentance, forgiveness. It shows that man was unable to keep his end of the bargain from the very beginning, and even from the beginning God was willing to forgive.

    You also realize that the Bible has two independent creation stories?
     
  12. kineticmind

    kineticmind يفخر الكافر

    3,938
    1
    38
    This is a horse that's been beaten to death, resurrected, and beaten all over again.

    If a bacteria were to evolve into a virus, a tumor, or even a duck for all it matters, this argument would have merit. As it stands, bacteria can and do adapt and mutate to compensate for a harsh environment... but that doesn't make them cease to be a bacteria.

    As for the laws of gravity, feel free to test them however you wish. On a similar note, any fool can jump out of an airplane, deny that gravity works or that the ground exists, and have a rude awakening once they discover the ground really does exist and they were headed straight for it the entire time.
     
  13. samman23

    samman23 New Member

    1,679
    0
    0
    I personally think that people that defend macro-evolution are quite religious in how they defend evolution. But the whole theory of macro-evolution goes against the natural law of entropy. It is also strange to me how these "scientific" people who defend macro-evolution do not seem to talk about evolutionary theory as a theory but as if it was natural law. These are the same people who write off Intelligent Design as a possibility without any consideration.

    Micro-evolution no the other hand makes perfect sense.
     
  14. vanguard

    vanguard New Member

    737
    0
    0
    you silly silly man , GRAVITY is a LAW NOT A THEORY. EVOLUTION IS A THEORY. not a law.
     
  15. jlcnuke

    jlcnuke New Member

    2,051
    1
    0
    Exactly my point. Either the Bible is a nice story with some good lessons and moral teachings (and some that should be ignored) that we should read and take away the good things from or it is a history book of facts (as some believe). Attempting to use it as a fact based book to teach the workings of the Universe on just makes no sense to me.

    Samman23 - The natural law of entropy in no way contradicts macro-evolution as it applies only to an isolated system and explains that there is a tendency for reduction in the entropy in that isolated system. A tendency of entropy to be reduced does not equal it cannot be increased and an isolated system exposed to a new environment would by the 2nd law of thermodynamics by definition have both environments total entropy altered if they were not exactly the same at the moment of exposure resulting in at least one having increased entropy for at least a short time period. There are many other explanations of why that claim is false but it's probably a moot point to discuss them here.
     
  16. dcannon1

    dcannon1 New Member

    6,548
    0
    0
    To be fair there is a difference in the science definition of theory and the standard usage of the word. In normal speak a theory is an idea or thought.

    In science a theory is where the content of the theory has been backed up by numerous independent studies and experiments. A scientific theory is extremely well proven before it can become a theory. The only thing more set is a scientific law, such as the speed of light. Even after a theory is proven beyond a doubt it it remains a theory.

    Other Scientific theories:
    - Relativity (both general and special)
    - Zero (yeah, the number. It's a scientific theory)
    - The Cell Theory (that living organisms are made of cells)
    - Gravity is in fact not a law, but a theory. Gravity works a certain way here on earth but there is not enough empirical evidence on how gravity works in the rest of the universe

    In science:
     
  17. jlcnuke

    jlcnuke New Member

    2,051
    1
    0
    You silly silly man. The Theory of Gravity was developed by Newton and has been essentially replaced with Einstein's theory of general relativity though due to the very minor errors in the Newtonian calculations it is often still used. Even with the more in depth theory of general relativity there are anomalies not explained fully in some observations relegating gravity to still being a theory as we don't have a full complete explanation of all the observed effects. Neither is complete or accounts for everything and scientifically in school and other places "Gravity" is often called the "law of gravity" but it is in fact an outdated, replaced theory.
     
  18. dcannon1

    dcannon1 New Member

    6,548
    0
    0
    Indeed as I also mentioned, gravity is "just another scientific theory".

    Once again: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true.
     
  19. spector

    spector New Member

    1,849
    0
    0
    You (and the above poster) are misusing the terms macro evolution and micro evolution. I believe the argument you are trying to make is one against speciation; that is, you are arguing against the proven notion that new species can arise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)

    That argument is patently false, as many new species have been observed to evolve.

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml

    The "theory" of evolution is one of the most well-explored, rigorously tested, and predictive theories in all of science. It is not something that "might" be true.
     
  20. kineticmind

    kineticmind يفخر الكافر

    3,938
    1
    38
    There are plenty of good arguments for the Big Bang theory and Darwinian evolution. I can't deny that. I've heard/read almost all of them from my days as a strict humanist.

    There are also plenty of good arguments against the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution, and just because someone doesn't subscribe to these grand ideas doesn't make that person "unscientific."

    http://www.trueorigin.org/

    It's always going to remain a matter of faith, for the religious and for the humanists, because as dcannon1 mentioned earlier, nobody living person will ever know 100% how it all happened.