• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real

Fishstyx said:
Actually, Gravity is not a theory, its a Law. Its gone through scientific process and conclusively proven.

As one that prescribes to Evolution, there are holes in the theory. Its not in the sense that parts have been proven false, its the fact that holes in the theory have yet to be filled. As in some questions have not been answered. Reasons vary and some parts will never be filled unless by some miracle we complete the fossil record 100% (not possible).
Click to expand...

DNA has proven more "gaps" in TOE than any fossils ever would. Your myths are clouding your vision.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution
 
That people can remain as willfully ignorant as the deniers of evolution in today's Information Age stuns me.
 
Fishstyx said:
Actually, Gravity is not a theory, its a Law. Its gone through scientific process and conclusively proven.

As one that prescribes to Evolution, there are holes in the theory. Its not in the sense that parts have been proven false, its the fact that holes in the theory have yet to be filled. As in some questions have not been answered. Reasons vary and some parts will never be filled unless by some miracle we complete the fossil record 100% (not possible).
Click to expand...

ACTUALLY, Gravity is both a Theory and a Law. The Theory is an explanation of the elements involved in producing the force we call Gravity. The Law defines the boundaries of the action of the force of gravity
 
Somerville said:
ACTUALLY, Gravity is both a Theory and a Law. The Theory is an explanation of the elements involved in producing the force we call Gravity. The Law defines the boundaries of the action of the force of gravity
Click to expand...

Thats generally referred to as the theory of General Relativity. Its pretty much semantical but arguing the differences is semi irrelevant. My comment was directed towards someone claiming that Gravity was a theory, its not.
 
calamity said:
The Big Bang doesn't disprove God. Nothing does. However, BB does disprove that God formed the earth, and evolution disproves that God made Adam from some mud and Eve from his rib.
Click to expand...

In what way does the truth of the Big Bang disprove that God formed the Earth?

-AJF
 
applejuicefool said:
In what way does the truth of the Big Bang disprove that God formed the Earth?

-AJF
Click to expand...

The facts do not support this assertion:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Click to expand...

THe sun was shining long before the earth was formed. Light came first...about 10 billion years before our sun was even formed.
 
Fenton said:
I'm amazed at the level of Scientific ignorance exhibited by those on the left.
Click to expand...

Oh so now I'm a member of the left, for no particular reason? Lulz... tell me another joke so I can laugh.

I'm aware of the circumstantial evidence they've collected to formulate the cosmological theory of the big bang. I don't find it terribly concrete, given that we are one tiny little spec in the universe staring out into something that we don't yet even understand. I'm aware of red shifting, thermodynamics, dark matter and gravity waves -- so stop lecturing me like I know nothing. I'm saying that, in light of all that evidence, I do not believe the big bang theory is provable... because all we have are limited human minds in a confined space to determine what all of this means, and every 10 years the understanding changes. For instance, Hawkings recently said that black holes may not actually exist, and half his career in cosmology was based on postulating mathematical theories about black holes!

Big bang is a creation myth like any other. If all you look for is positive proof of it, then it's all you'll find, much like how people look for God in everything. I find that scientists become tellingly unobjective when discussing the big bang. They can prove everything up to the point of the big bang at which point they ask us to just take their word for it. No thank you.
 
calamity said:
The facts do not support this assertion:



THe sun was shining long before the earth was formed. Light came first...about 10 billion years before our sun was even formed.
Click to expand...

Yes, taking a literal reading of Genesis is factually inaccurate. But such a reading is not required, it's not even really the norm.
 
Northern Light said:
Oh so now I'm a member of the left, for no particular reason? Lulz... tell me another joke so I can laugh.

I'm aware of the circumstantial evidence they've collected to formulate the cosmological theory of the big bang. I don't find it terribly concrete, given that we are one tiny little spec in the universe staring out into something that we don't yet even understand. I'm aware of red shifting, thermodynamics, dark matter and gravity waves -- so stop lecturing me like I know nothing. I'm saying that, in light of all that evidence, I do not believe the big bang theory is provable... because all we have are limited human minds in a confined space to determine what all of this means, and every 10 years the understanding changes. For instance, Hawkings recently said that black holes may not actually exist, and half his career in cosmology was based on postulating mathematical theories about black holes!

Big bang is a creation myth like any other. If all you look for is positive proof of it, then it's all you'll find, much like how people look for God in everything. I find that scientists become tellingly unobjective when discussing the big bang. They can prove everything up to the point of the big bang at which point they ask us to just take their word for it. No thank you.
Click to expand...

You've contradicted yourself. You acknowledge varying lines of evidence, and then call it a "creation myth."

So, am I to take it that in your opinion, you either have absolute proof or a myth, and nothing in between?
 
Calamity: Ok, now you're moving the goalposts. You said that the Big Bang (at least I assume that's what BB stands for in this context) disproves that God formed the Earth, not that the account given in Genesis is factually inaccurate. Is it possible that God formed the Earth, but that the Genesis account is incorrect in detail?

-AJF
 
applejuicefool said:
Calamity: Ok, now you're moving the goalposts. You said that the Big Bang (at least I assume that's what BB stands for in this context) disproves that God formed the Earth, not that the account given in Genesis is factually inaccurate. Is it possible that God formed the Earth, but that the Genesis account is incorrect in detail?

-AJF
Click to expand...
Gravity formed the earth from the remnants of a supernova of a star which was formed by the debris of the big bang. Sheesh. Don't you people know anything about astrophysics?
 
Deuce said:
You've contradicted yourself. You acknowledge varying lines of evidence, and then call it a "creation myth."

So, am I to take it that in your opinion, you either have absolute proof or a myth, and nothing in between?
Click to expand...

This isn't even worth arguing over. Believe what you want. Our paltry lives continue to turn here on planet earth. :shrug:

I'm saying I don't believe in the big bang, just deal with it and move on.
 
I suppose that, if you look at things really objectively, big bang, evolution and god are all theories. None are proven beyond doubt. Evolution has more observable evidence than the others and is probably the most certain of the three but the truth is they are all theories. I don't see how any of them disprove the other two logically. As an example, if you want to define god, just figure out what was there before the big bang. That might be a good definition in my view.
 
As a catholic I have a lot of issues with the church but one shining plus is our priests and other clerics are very educated and in fact some are actually respected scientists in their own right.

List of Roman Catholic cleric-scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If some of the hillybilly self ordained fundamentalists would at least have some education there would be less idiotic conclusions on evolution and the origin of man and they would probably be a little less judgemental.

It just blows me away the people thst still believe the earth is 6000 years old and man walked with the dinosaurs.
 
Last edited:
fmw said:
I suppose that, if you look at things really objectively, big bang, evolution and god are all theories. None are proven beyond doubt. Evolution has more observable evidence than the others and is probably the most certain of the three but the truth is they are all theories. I don't see how any of them disprove the other two logically. As an example, if you want to define god, just figure out what was there before the big bang. That might be a good definition in my view.
Click to expand...

The moving golapost version of God perhaps. But, what is commonly perceived to be the definition of God is that dude in the Bible--the Adam and Eve molder, the Noah's Ark big flood maker, the burning bush which handed Moses two clay tablets--that one has been all but proven to not exist.
 
Northern Light said:
This isn't even worth arguing over. Believe what you want. Our paltry lives continue to turn here on planet earth. :shrug:

I'm saying I don't believe in the big bang, just deal with it and move on.
Click to expand...

You may as well not believe in sunlight.
 
calamity said:
Gravity formed the earth from the remnants of a supernova of a star which was formed by the debris of the big bang. Sheesh. Don't you people know anything about astrophysics?
Click to expand...

When you look at a wooden chair, do you say "A saw and a hammer made this chair"? or do you say "A carpenter made this chair"?

-AJF
 
calamity said:
The moving golapost version of God perhaps. But, what is commonly perceived to be the definition of God is that dude in the Bible--the Adam and Eve molder, the Noah's Ark big flood maker, the burning bush which handed Moses two clay tablets--that one has been all but proven to not exist.
Click to expand...
That's not my definition of God. To me god is mother nature, laws of physics, first cause or, perhaps, simply that which existed prior to the big bang. There is no need to define it as an old, white bearded man in a white robe. The anthropomorphic definitions of god are simply techniques to help people deal with the mysterious.
 
Erod said:
OK, well let me know when you find all those pesky transitional fossils, and I'd like a good explanation of where that original set of DNA came from.
Click to expand...

All fossils are transitional fossils. Your great great grandparents are (or at least, will come to be) transitional fossils. So are mine.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Wrong.

The Ebola virus, for example, is being fought using the understanding of how it has evolved and how the selection process is effecting it.

The expected arrival of Bird flue has been predicted because of the understanding of evolution. It has had research done on it before it makes the species jump. We are vastly better prepared for this event because of the amount of understanding we have of the situation which has yet to happen.
Click to expand...

When you body learns to fight a disease that is no evolution, it is adaptation.
 
Erod said:
There is a ton of evidence for adaptation and survival of the fittest. That a dog became a horse....no, there is none. Transitional gaps abound everywhere within the evidence.
Click to expand...

There are obviously gaps in the fossil record as we don't have every single individual who is the ancestor of every individual animal, plant, fungus or whatever recorded in the fossil record. So what?

We do have the record of every single one of the mutations of the DNA sequence that that history has passed down to the surviving individuals.

A dog did not become a horse. You know that this is not the theory of evolution and saying it is is a deliberate lie.
 
Northern Light said:
Yeah because the two things are remotely similar. :roll:
Click to expand...

They might as well be. We know for a fact that everything is moving further apart from each other which tells us that everything started from a single point.

You want to go ahead and tell us that God did the big bang? Fine, but don't tell us the big bang didn't happen.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Wrong.

The Ebola virus, for example, is being fought using the understanding of how it has evolved and how the selection process is effecting it.

The expected arrival of Bird flue has been predicted because of the understanding of evolution. It has had research done on it before it makes the species jump. We are vastly better prepared for this event because of the amount of understanding we have of the situation which has yet to happen.
Click to expand...

American said:
When you body learns to fight a disease that is no evolution, it is adaptation.
Click to expand...

True but what has that got to do with understanding how bird flue will evolve to a human pathogen?

The solution to ebola will involve a vaccination program. Prayer is not going to help.
 
Tim the plumber said:
There are obviously gaps in the fossil record as we don't have every single individual who is the ancestor of every individual animal, plant, fungus or whatever recorded in the fossil record. So what?

We do have the record of every single one of the mutations of the DNA sequence that that history has passed down to the surviving individuals.

A dog did not become a horse. You know that this is not the theory of evolution and saying it is is a deliberate lie.
Click to expand...

The point is, we don't have record of one species morphing into another species. Saying so is a deliberate lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom