Pope accepts big bang theory

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I've read about the subject a few times. How does something get accepted in the scientific community? Hint...not just because person A says it. At the time of Galileo there wasn't enough study done on the subject for him to print books stating it as a fact. We know it's a fact today because it's been studied and proven to be true. Not so then. Which was the biggest problem with his ideas. They hadn't been accepted yet by the scientific community. He was asked not to publish his ideas until they had more evidence and conversely if he did to give both sides. He then used a character that was a synonym for fool to quote the pope's view. You can read about it if you choose....or just not study it and think what you want. Matters not to me.u_r_a_sausage

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... How do you know that? Furthermore does that mean Noah's Ark is to be taken literally to? That the entire earth flooded?

LJS9502_basic

these stories are meant to be taken literally and thats how people viewed them before. it is only just now that christians find it embarrassing to believe in these stories so they say "oh its not meant to be taken literally". i guarantee in a couple hundred years there will be christians whosay thatGod in bible is not to be taken literally.

there is no indication AT ALL that these stories are not to be taken literally and people before DID take them as a literal

these stories are meant to be taken literally and thats how people viewed them before. it is only just now that christians find it embarrassing to believe in these stories so they say "oh its not meant to be taken literally". i guarantee in a couple hundred years there will be christians whosay thatGod in bible is not to be taken literally.

Harisemo

although interesting, I don't see this thread going anywhere good :x

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

these stories are meant to be taken literally and thats how people viewed them before. it is only just now that christians find it embarrassing to believe in these stories so they say "oh its not meant to be taken literally". i guarantee in a couple hundred years there will be christians whosay thatGod in bible is not to be taken literally.

Harisemo

there is no indication AT ALL that these stories are not to be taken literally and people before DID take them as a literal

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] Since when has science ever been a part of Christian belief? Christians have been open to explore science and history for a very very long time. It's only in recent years that Christians have been criticized for ignoring all schooling, science and common sense and to follow the bible as a scientific text book. No thanks, I'm more confident in recent scientific discoveries than the scientific understanding of nomads that lived 4000 years ago. I'll continue to use the bible as it was meant to be read, a book that provides us with the moral codes, the story of Christ and the truths necessary for salvation. LJS9502_basic

Tell that to Galileo.

That's not to say that there aren't many Christians who have accepted science throughouot history, but Christianity in general and as an institution has a long history, since its formation really, of ignoring and sometimes even rejecting scientific observations.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]You're sure it's the case because there's no proof that it isn't. Christ. Logic, for you, is something that only applies to other people, isn't it? Well, I'm sure that you're a serial killer because there's no proof that you're not. How about that?u_r_a_sausage

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

these stories are meant to be taken literally and thats how people viewed them before. it is only just now that christians find it embarrassing to believe in these stories so they say "oh its not meant to be taken literally". i guarantee in a couple hundred years there will be christians whosay thatGod in bible is not to be taken literally.

Harisemo

there is no indication AT ALL that these stories are not to be taken literally and people before DID take them as a literal

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Tell that to Galileo.

That's not to say that there aren't many Christians who have accepted science throughouot history, but Christianity in general and as an institution has a long history, since its formation really, of ignoring and sometimes even rejecting scientific observations.

-Sun_Tzu-

Dude what? The pope is dismissing his own religion?

What is this I don't even

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]Neither was I, dear.u_r_a_sausage

Dude what? The pope is dismissing his own religion?

What is this I don't even

Loegi

Dude what? The pope is dismissing his own religion?

What is this I don't even

Loegi

Dude what? The pope is dismissing his own religion?

What is this I don't even

Loegi

[QUOTE="Loegi"]

Dude what? The pope is dismissing his own religion?

What is this I don't even

foxhound_fox

"God created heaven and earth" Doesn't this sentence imply that there was no big bang?

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="Loegi"]

Dude what? The pope is dismissing his own religion?

What is this I don't even

Loegi

"God created heaven and earth" Doesn't this sentence imply that there was no big bang?

[QUOTE="Loegi"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
How does the big bang theory contradict Christianity? Genesis is from Jewish canon... and I'm pretty sure Jesus never once made a discourse on the origin of the universe (besides "God created heaven and earth" and "God created everything")... which leaves it entirely open to an empirical explanation.

LJS9502_basic

"God created heaven and earth" Doesn't this sentence imply that there was no big bang?

I... I never looked at it that way :|

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="Loegi"]

Dude what? The pope is dismissing his own religion?

What is this I don't even

Loegi

"God created heaven and earth" Doesn't this sentence imply that there was no big bang?

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Who says they are meant to be taken literally? You? I've never been taught to take them literally.LJS9502_basic

there is no indication AT ALL that these stories are not to be taken literally and people before DID take them as a literal

common sense tells me these stories were meant to be taken literally and PEOPLE DID TAKE THEM LITERALLY IN THOSE TIMES. if i tell you a story about a dude who died last year i want you to take it literally unless i indicate that its not meant to be taken literally and its only, as foxhound put it, an "inspiriting message for moral behaviour".

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Loegi"]

"God created heaven and earth" Doesn't this sentence imply that there was no big bang?

Loegi

I... I never looked at it that way :|

"God created heaven and earth" Doesn't this sentence imply that there was no big bang?

Loegi

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

there is no indication AT ALL that these stories are not to be taken literally and people before DID take them as a literal

Harisemo

common sense tells me these stories were meant to be taken literally and PEOPLE DID TAKE THEM LITERALLY IN THOSE TIMES. if i tell you a story about a dude who died last year i want you to take it literally unless i indicate that its not meant to be taken literally and its only, as foxhound put it, an "inspiriting message for moral behaviour".

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]Galileo's observations - for example the phases of venus and the movement of sunspots relative to the sun - were inconsistent with with geocentrism; the best model to explain them was heliocentrism. P.S. please stop pulling things out of your ass as regards what constitutes a theory.u_r_a_sausage

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] Galileo wasn't punished not of what he taught but rather because he went against the wishes of Rome. They wished that his theories be taught as Hypothesis for the time being within the scientific Circle until more information could be obtained to safeguard the ordinary catholic. However Galileo ignored this request and thus got him in a bit of trouble. They were more than willing to see it as a hypothesis until it could be definitively proven as fact. We know definitely know this as fact and is taught as such, but in those days we had no such factual evidence. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]Galileo's observations - for example the phases of venus and the movement of sunspots relative to the sun - were inconsistent with with geocentrism; the best model to explain them was heliocentrism. P.S. please stop pulling things out of your ass as regards what constitutes a theory.u_r_a_sausage

Really? All literature uses symbolism. In fact, you can study what numbers meant to the Jewish people. They weren't just random numbers. Again....you are assuming it was intended to be taken literally and also that it was, in fact, always taken literally. Nonetheless, Jesus is in the NT. What He taught is in there. To assume anything else....is just that...assumption.LJS9502_basic

Yes it was taken literally, is there anything that indicates that people of that time never took these stories literally? justlike howGod, the angels and the devil are literal, so are these stories and the people mentioned in those stories.you are also assuming its not meant to be taken literally soiyo the stories described in bible are not literal and the people mentioned in those stories probably didnt exist as well so yeah like i said whats next? God is not meant to be taken literally?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Galileo was punished because what he taught went against the wishes of Rome. During Galileo's time from a scientific perspective, the best model for the solar system was the heliocentric model, and it was rejected by the church not because of scientific skepticism but because it contradicted dogma, and eventually Galileo was put on trial for publically advocating a so-called false and heretical doctrine. -Sun_Tzu-

Heliocentrism at the time was a lot more than just "an idea from one individual". Again, heliocentrism was rejected not because of scientific skepticism but because of religious dogma. Based on what was known during Galileo's time, heliocentrism was the best model for the solar system, and the skepticism that was directed towards heliocentrism were fueled by the fact that it contradicted the dogma held at the time by the Church. What the church was essentially saying to Galileo was that there isn't enough evidence to support heliocentrism to warrant a reinterpretation of scripture, and they really needlessly slowed down the inevitable widespread acceptance of the heliocentric model by suppressing evidence and arguments in favor of said model, and that's a horrible way to conduct scientific inquiry. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Galileo was punished because what he taught went against the wishes of Rome. During Galileo's time from a scientific perspective, the best model for the solar system was the heliocentric model, and it was rejected by the church not because of scientific skepticism but because it contradicted dogma, and eventually Galileo was put on trial for publically advocating a so-called false and heretical doctrine. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]But still one person. Again...scientific theory requires quite a bit more than that before they decide something has moved to theory. u_r_a_sausage

Yes it was taken literally, is there anything that indicates that people of that time never took these stories literally? justlike howGod, the angels and the devil are literal, so are these stories and the people mentioned in those stories.you are also assuming its not meant to be taken literally soiyo the stories described in bible are not literal and the people mentioned in those stories probably didnt exist as well so yeah like i said whats next? God is not meant to be taken literally?

Harisemo

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Really? All literature uses symbolism. In fact, you can study what numbers meant to the Jewish people. They weren't just random numbers. Again....you are assuming it was intended to be taken literally and also that it was, in fact, always taken literally. Nonetheless, Jesus is in the NT. What He taught is in there. To assume anything else....is just that...assumption.Harisemo

Yes it was taken literally, is there anything that indicates that people of that time never took these stories literally? justlike howGod, the angels and the devil are literal, so are these stories and the people mentioned in those stories.you are also assuming its not meant to be taken literally soiyo the stories described in bible are not literal and the people mentioned in those stories probably didnt exist as well so yeah like i said whats next? God is not meant to be taken literally?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Galileo's situation was much more complicated than that. He faced the ire of the pope because he made him appear a fool in his book. Nothing that would endear one to oneself.LJS9502_basic

I am quite surprised Copernicus hasn't been brought into this debate yet. He posited a heliocentric solar system long before Galileo.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And why did he appear a fool in his book? Because the pope forced Galileo to put his arguments in favor of geocentricism in the Dialogue, and Galileo, with all the evidence in support of heliocentrism and against geocentricism in mind, goes down the line and refutes every outdated argument in favor of geocentricism that the pope wanted him to put in his book. Galileo never intended to make a fool out of the pope, who he was on very friendly terms with prior to the books publication. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]Well, no; more than one person. Apart from the stubborn Catholic fools who refused to look through the telescope, of course. Oh, and the earlier observations of Kepler suggested a heliocentric model. Also your grotesque failure to understand the scientific method and what constitutes a theory gets funnier by the minute.u_r_a_sausage

Not surprising. The Big Bang is still a theory formulated by humans who have never left their own solar system (just to put things in perspective), but there's no reason why the theory and God can't coexist. There's no reason why evolution and God can't coexist either.

Not surprising. The Big Bang is still a theory formulated by humans who have never left their own solar system (just to put things in perspective), but there's no reason why the theory and God can't coexist. There's no reason why evolution and God can't coexist either.

hartsickdiscipl

Doesn't that depend on the God?