| Science/Technology
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
5359 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 17:53:55
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Pope and the Big Bang |
URL: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html |
|
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand'
The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.
Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.
Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.
He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.
Pope Francis has come up with 10 tips for a happier life
“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.
“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
The Catholic Church has long had a reputation for being anti-science – most famously when Galileo faced the inquisition and was forced to retract his “heretic” theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun
more at link
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5385] [5389] [5373] [5376] [5375] [5360] [5367] [5370] [5377] [5387] [5368] [5371] [5369] [5372] [5374] [5378] [5382] [5384] [5392] [5394] [5380] [5383] [5379] [5381] |
|
5385 |
|
|
Date: October 30, 2014 at 12:56:28
From: blindhog, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Evolution and survival of the fittest |
|
|
|
If the pope is finally admitting that there is evolution, his support of a gay lifestyle could not mesh with that. Gay marriage with governmental and business benefits, is, because of an ever smaller pool of money, economically detrimental to the natural survival of the fittest, those whose genes naturally enable them to evolve.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5389] |
|
5389 |
|
|
Date: October 31, 2014 at 17:24:16
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Evolution and survival of the fittest |
|
|
It may be a game the Vatican is playing to be everything to everyone. A resculpting within certain parameters for political purposes of globalist unification.
Not saying God couldn't employ evolution but I don't see that he did. Tales of evolution are a bit shaky.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5373 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 12:01:30
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: he should pack his opinions up his hinder and stick to stealing gold (NT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5376] [5375] |
|
5376 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 14:25:24
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: A comment on Dawkins |
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVjd1yDXNTM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5375 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 14:21:49
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: he should pack his opinions up his hinder and stick to stealing...(NT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5360 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 18:17:59
From: Sciguy, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
|
Seems that you've made a big leap in the direction of science, Steve. How is it that you were arguing just the opposite only a post or so ago? I think it's interesting that the church has been forced by science into a box so tiny, that not even the pope can argue orthodox Catholicism without violating last years credo. Have to give the new pope credit for loosening the reins of the Church, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5367] [5370] [5377] [5387] [5368] [5371] [5369] [5372] [5374] [5378] [5382] [5384] [5392] [5394] [5380] [5383] [5379] [5381] |
|
5367 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 08:14:18
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
Dib, I dig science and always have. Dawkins is the one
in denile. The no creator chaos into a finely tuned
universe theory crowd are nuts.
Pope makes a good point that if Bang and evolution
exist that the hand of God is required.
There is some evidence for bang and evolution but
there is not an overwhelming abundance of it. There are
good arguements against evolution considering the age
of the earth of 4-5 billion years. Artifacts found in
geological formation millions of years old that were
man made.
It's a rigged game, outcome based psuedo-science that
hides any evidence that challenges the official
concocted paradigm.
Theories are not facts, sometimes they prove out and
sometimes they flop. Evolution has been pimped as a
fact which it isn't, it's a theorie.
The Pope says he believes it which may be a clever
Aikido move against atheism that have always used
evolution without a creator as the cornerstone of their
belief.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5370] [5377] [5387] [5368] [5371] [5369] [5372] [5374] [5378] [5382] [5384] [5392] [5394] [5380] [5383] [5379] [5381] |
|
5370 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 11:00:06
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
"Pope makes a good point that if Bang and evolution
exist that the hand of God is required.”
I think that’s what’s called a non sequitur fallacy, but it's a fallacy fursure.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5377] [5387] |
|
5377 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 14:37:37
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
Or a logical extrapolation cosidering the appearance of
a precission universe. Hey someone is dealing the
cards.
Interesting that Dibby is not totally onboard with the
Big Bangers. Big Bang may come back to bite the pope
in the ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5387] |
|
5387 |
|
|
Date: October 31, 2014 at 09:59:27
From: blindhog, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
|
You may be right. The sun has been hit by comets in the last few years that I think have led to these spots on the sun that radiate sun flares or CMEs. Is it possible that a higher force is not happy with what is going on with the "I am who am's" creation here on earth? Is it time for the next earth that ancient tribal lore refers to?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5368 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 09:27:34
From: Sciguy, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
>Dib,
I'm Sciguy. I thought you knew that dib died falling off a ladder outside a three-story female dormitory at UC.
>I dig science and always have.
Steve, what you, and most people on these boards dig, is pseudoscience, not science. You really should learn the difference.
>Dawkins is the one in denile.
This is what intrigues me about your ideas. You show no comprehension that you have ever had any science in your background, yet you "correct" the views of one of the most intelligent scientific minds of any century. I would honestly put your knowledge of scientific fact at about the sixth-grade level or lower, and the reason is that you have been brainwashed by religion. Mind if I ask whether you had any high school classes?
>The no creator chaos into a finely tuned universe theory crowd are nuts.
Lol. Steve, this is my last response to your nutty ideas. You have no interest in trying to educate yourself.
>Pope makes a good point that if Bang and evolution
exist that the hand of God is required.
Even though that point is an improvement over your previous posts, it is annoying that you only revised your dogma because the pope said so. Are you aware of the history of religion? Are you aware that a few centuries ago, the religious would have burned the pope at the stake for his current statements on religion? Why would a God allow such atrocities? Nevermind, I know you could come up with some nonsensical answer.
>There is some evidence for bang and evolution but
there is not an overwhelming abundance of it.
Your "bang" statement is legitimate, but lol on the evolution part--the evidence is overwhelming. My advice to you is to take your ostrich head out of the sand, go to a bookstore, and ask the saleslady where the Science section is. You should find a lot of books that can help you, if you are really interested in knowing the truth. You won't, though, because you aren't.
>There are good arguements against evolution considering the age of the earth of 4-5 billion years. Artifacts found in geological formation millions of years old that were man made. It's a rigged game, outcome based psuedo-science that hides any evidence that challenges the official concocted paradigm.
This is the type of bullshit that ticks me off--turning reason 180-degrees just to prop up a rickety argument that is collapsing under it's own weight. You make no attempt to discover the truth, you don't question your pseudoscience, you just look through garbage to find anything to support your childish view of science. Do you realize that you are now disputing, not only your pope, but the vast majority of the educated scientists in this country?
>Theories are not facts, sometimes they prove out and
sometimes they flop.
True, but the theory of evolution is no longer just a theory, it's fact. A theory becomes fact when supported by enough evidence that there is no longer any doubt. The theory of evolution is no longer just a theory, it's fact, and that statement is also a fact.
>Evolution has been pimped as a fact which it isn't, it's a theorie.
See above.
>The Pope says he believes it which may be a clever
Aikido move against atheism that have always used
evolution without a creator as the cornerstone of their
belief.
LOLOL. You are dis'ing the pope now? LOLOL.
My final response to you, Steve. It's obvious that you are stuck in the quicksand of ignorance and you will never ever be able to educate yourself out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5371] [5369] [5372] [5374] [5378] [5382] [5384] [5392] [5394] [5380] [5383] [5379] [5381] |
|
5371 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 11:07:55
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
Dear Sigh-guy To think a precission universe appeared
spontaneously billions of years ago that supports
abundant life on at least one planet for a very long
time, that has no designer , creator or maintainer is
hallucinatory. You be trippin amigo.
Is it to soon to buy a saddle or will it take a bit
longer for my lobster to become a horse ?
Can we look forward to a Pope, Dawkins debate on the
God part of the Pope's statement ?
OK happy Halloween , I hope a ghost scares the Hell out
of you and opens your mind to at least the possiblity
that we exist beyond the corporial form. No you don't
need a Dawkins permission slip to think your own
thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5369 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 10:57:22
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
URL: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm |
|
I don’t know if the premises in each of these are sound or not. Do you,
sciguy?
Problems of the Big Bang Theory
"1. Redshift with Distance due to Doppler Effects of Receding Motion
In the Big Bang theory it is not the receding motion of matter, but
expanding space that is used to explain the redshift with distance. Thus
they argue that the wavelength of light is longer due to 'stretching' space.
The problems;
1.1 This is not a Doppler effect. A Doppler effect is for motion of matter
in space, not for the expansion of space itself. Thus the Big Bang theory is
not founded on the Doppler effect but a theoretical concept of expanding
space.
1.2 This then assumes that space exists (to be able to expand), yet in
other areas of physics they claim there is no absolute space. e.g. The
electromagnetic wave is claimed to not require a physical medium. This
was necessary to accommodate Einstein's special relativity where there
was no absolute reference frame for motion (space), instead all motion is
relative to other matter.
1.3 This also assumes that light is a wave, yet in other areas of physics
light is claimed to be a 'photon particle' which then contradicts the idea
of light waves being stretched (longer wavelength) due to expanding
space.
The central point - the big bang theory is based on purely theoretical
foundations, and they use different concepts to explain different things,
when the concepts they use are contradictory of one another.
In WSM cosmology the redshift with distance is deduced due to
decreasing wave interactions with distance. Thus there is no need to use
the 'pseudo Doppler effect' as they currently do.
2. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is sensibly explained
due to radiation from cold matter in interstellar space. Since we only
measure one source of CMBR this means that there cannot have been a
'Big Bang' otherwise we would observe two sources of cosmic background
radiation.
The expression "the temperature of space" is the title of chapter 13 of Sir
Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, Eddington calculated the
minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is
immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable
parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K ), essentially the same
as the observed, so-called 'background' temperature. A similar
calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting
temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy
light. So the intergalactic matter is like a 'fog' and would therefore
provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its
blackbody-shaped spectrum. (Van Flandern)
3. The Big Bang and the Formation of Elements
... in 1957, after years of steady work - aided by advances in nuclear
physics and stellar observations - Margaret and Gregory Burbridge,
William Fowler and Hoyle published a comprehensive and detailed theory
showing how stellar systems could produce all the known elements in
proportions very close to those observed to exist. In addition, the theory
accounted for the growing evidence that the elementary composition
varies from star to star, something that would not be possible if the
elements were produced by the Big Bang. The new theory was rapidly
accepted as substantially correct.
... just as Lemaitre's Big Bang failed when cosmic rays were shown to be
produced in the present-day universe rather than the distant past, so
Gamow's failed when the chemical elements were shown to be produced
by present-day stars. (Eric Lerner)
4. Superclusters and Voids are Older than the Big Bang Universe
Tully has shown that Superclusters are a few hundred million light-years
across. Given galaxies generally move at less than a thousand kilometers
per second, thus the universe cannot have begun twenty billion years ago.
Likewise, recently discovered large-scale voids would require around 70
billion years to form, five times as long as the age of the universe in the
Big Bang theory.
5. The Universe is Ordered thus Infinite
In a finite universe created by the Big Bang the second law of
thermodynamics would cause the universe to tend towards entropy and
disorder. The fact is that this is not observed, the universe is highly
ordered.
As Paul Davies, another religious cosmologist, writes: No natural agency,
intelligent or otherwise, can delay forever the end of the universe. Only a
supernatural God could try to wind it up again.
The WSM cosmology solves this problem by showing how our observable
universe is just a finite spherical region of infinite eternal space. And the
second law of thermodynamics does not apply to infinite space.
6. Singularities / Infinite Energy Densities are Mathematical Concepts Only
The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Bang Theory is that of
the singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe, in which its
density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to
mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a
breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of
physics as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious
questions about it.
In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of the
universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to represent an
extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.
According to prevailing theory, before that instant, space and time did
not exist. Although to some, who confuse their religious ideas with
science, this is seen as a reasonable interpretation of their religious
beliefs, to others the beginning of space and time might represent a
significant problem. (Bill Mitchell)
7. Inflation is an Ad Hoc Solution to a Theory that Contradicts Observation
Inflation theory, that was invented for the purpose, is said to provide
simple solutions to some of the problems of pre-inflation Big Bang
Theory. Inflation theorists have alleged that the inflationary expansion of
the early Big Bang universe, involving speeds orders of magnitude greater
than that of light, did not involve the travel of mass or energy, and thus
did not violate the theory of relativity in solving the singularity problem.
But how inflation, as opposed to ordinary expansion, can in some manner
displace all the mass or energy of the universe without physically moving
it, defies common understanding. A violation of Einstein's prohibition of
speeds in excess of that of light seems to be inherent in that process. (Bill
Mitchell)
8. What is Decelerating?
If the universe is expanding and, if that expansion is decelerating due to
gravitational attraction of the mass of the universe, as Big Bang theorists
believe, they have not made it clear whether the expansion of space is
decelerating, or whether the expansion of the matter in space is
decelerating. A lack of clarity regarding this matter would seem to add to
the difficulties of Big Bang Theory. (Bill Mitchell)
9. Distant Galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field are not 'Primitive' and Move
as if Surrounded by Matter.
Since heavy metals are formed by Supernovas, thus early stars (first
generation in the Big Bang) should not show metal content - yet they do.
Further, recent evidence shows that the motion of distant galaxies (as
determined by the matter around them) contradicts Big Bang theory. (The
wave structure of matter predicted this - see the Cosmology Predictions.
10. The Big Bang Satisfies the Religious Creation Myth
Though we like to think of science as the objective study of truth, history
shows that this is far from the truth. Most scientists are religious - this
necessarily influences their thinking. As Nietzsche writes of philosophers
and scientists, they;
"... pose as having discovered and attained their real opinions through the
self-evolution of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic: while what
happens at bottom is that a prejudice, a notion, an 'inspiration,' generally
a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is defended by them with
reasons sought after the event" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil)
Thus we can understand why the Big Bang theory is so popular, it satisfies
this religious need for a god / creator. As Pope Pius XII wrote;
In fact, it seems that present-day science, with one sweeping step back
across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that
primordial 'Fiat lux' (Let there be light) uttered at the moment when,
along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and
radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed
into millions of galaxies ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore,
there is a Creator, God exists! (Pope Pius XII, 1951)"
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5372] [5374] [5378] [5382] [5384] [5392] [5394] [5380] [5383] [5379] [5381] |
|
5372 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 11:36:33
From: Sciguy, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
|
I don't know if you posted that long message to correct me on my Big Bang comment, but if so, then please read my message again. I did not endorse the BBT, nor did I dispute it.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5374] [5378] [5382] [5384] [5392] [5394] [5380] [5383] [5379] [5381] |
|
5374 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 12:13:51
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
no, I was wondering what you thought of those claims. I'm genuinely
curious about them and wondering if they are valid. Since you're
scientifically inclined I thought you might find them interesting or dispute
them based on your own knowledge. Since you're clearly not interested,
never mind. adios
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5378] [5382] [5384] [5392] [5394] [5380] [5383] [5379] [5381] |
|
5378 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 15:33:47
From: Sciguy2, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
All I care to say to you is in this message. I'm getting tired of the crap being posted here, so I'm pulling out.
I mistook the reason you insulted me. It wasn't my silly "love" comment, you thought I had no reason to be insulting Big Jerk. FYI, Big Jerk has been trolling me as if he had a mental obsession of a crazed psychopath. His trolling extends the entire time occupied by the current page of the Science Board. I don't like feeding trolls, so I took to responding to his trolling by posting a response above his. Ok, still a response, so sue me.
Do you want to know why he has been trolling me? He admitted it in a post to Marja on this board: He didn't like me calling myself Sciguy. Can you imagine anything sillier than that to troll someone on a chat board? So EVERY message I posted from then on, he trolled me with extraneous questions that had nothing to do with the thread. He claimed he wanted to find out whether I was a scientist or not, but he lied, it was pure trolling for the simple fact that HE wanted to be thought of as the big-shot science guy. What's hilarious about Big Jerks egotistical trolling is that I chose that handle out of thin air, and didn't have the faintest idea that it would generate any animosity, it was just a chat room pseudo name, for cripes sake.
I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not, and I don't give a damn whether you toady up to Big Jerk, that's none of my business, but that's why I am not posting on any of Big Jerk's messages, and why I got po'd about your shitty comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5382] [5384] [5392] [5394] [5380] [5383] [5379] [5381] |
|
5382 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 16:57:19
From: BJ, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
When you claim to be a science guy and can't answer science questions, be prepared for ridicule.
Stop the name calling.
BTW stop whining.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5384] [5392] [5394] |
|
5384 |
|
|
Date: October 30, 2014 at 08:10:18
From: marc / berkeley, [DNS_Address]
Subject: LOL!! agreed(NT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5392] [5394] |
|
5392 |
|
|
Date: November 01, 2014 at 23:17:50
From: XYZ, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: LOL!! agreed(NT) |
|
|
What Amazes me is you talk about who has an education and None
of you spelled" Denile " (denial)correctly and you are All wrong about
the Big Bang theory unless you want to call the guy in the theatre
who turned on those bright white lights AND turned on the
PROJECTOR THAT RUNS THIS HOLOGRAPHIC "reality"
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5394] |
|
5394 |
|
|
Date: November 02, 2014 at 11:20:27
From: BJ, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: LOL!! agreed(NT) |
|
|
None of you spelled denial correctly- I didn't use denial in my post so why the broad BS post?
more Ridicule - LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5380 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 16:44:54
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
'Do you want to know why he has been trolling me?' No.
I'm sorry for entangling myself in that ridiculous crap. I'm also sorry I
offended you, truly. It was my awkward way of trying to lighten thing up
& I failed.
You know, these boards are a good place to practice being non-reactive.
It saves a lot of energy and allows me to focus on what I care about and
want to express.. and it's a learning process. fyi
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5383] |
|
5383 |
|
|
Date: October 30, 2014 at 08:06:18
From: marc / berkeley, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Impressive! |
|
|
Akira-
That's a brilliant perspective!
Using Science to make advances! I love it!
--M
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5379 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 15:35:15
From: Sciguy2, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
|
Apparently one of the shitheads here registered my handle.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5381] |
|
5381 |
|
|
Date: October 29, 2014 at 16:45:39
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Pope and the Big Bang |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |