Pope Francis On Evolution And Big Bang

[mfbukowski]

Not sure the Big Bang theory makes any difference to our belief system.

Clearly it falsifies all of evolutionary theory and this Mormon nonsense by scientifically proving creation ex nihilo, and thus also proves a clockwork universe which is pre-designed that we are all robots without agency, with firm scientific evidence.  We must now all become Calvinists because the Big Bang theory is true.

[rodheadlee]

Interesting that one can label a theory "false" when we have not clue what is "true".

 

So much for the old dictum "If it's not true, it's false."

I tried to post this link with it.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

I like this theory though I have no education to understand the math. I think it has the ring of truth. here are some quotes.

 

 

No singularities nor dark stuff

In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.

Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.

In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.

 

 

 

 

" New gravity particle

In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

[LOSTONE]

All I know is that... ((( Bang !!! ))) There is monkeys.... Tic, Toc, Tic, Tic, Tic, Toc, the monkeys became me and here I am... I don’t actually believe this but given who I am, it would explain alot about me....

[Stone holm]

Clearly it falsifies all of evolutionary theory and this Mormon nonsense by scientifically proving creation ex nihilo, and thus also proves a clockwork universe which is pre-designed that we are all robots without agency, with firm scientific evidence.  We must now all become Calvinists because the Big Bang theory is true.

Not really. The Big Bang was an explosion of something, so it wasn't ex nihilio and it has no explanation of what came before. Further, not sure we, as Mormons, doctrinally require Heavenly Father to have existed as such before the explosion, and we do not know enough about intelligences to know if they could have been compacted enough to all fit within the singularity. I don't think the Big Bang theory is all that helpful one way or the other in the religious discussion. Further quantum theory injects sufficient uncertainty to preserve free will. Calvinism is a rather pointless religious view.

[mfbukowski]

Not really. The Big Bang was an explosion of something, so it wasn't ex nihilio and it has no explanation of what came before. Further, not sure we, as Mormons, doctrinally require Heavenly Father to have existed as such before the explosion, and we do not know enough about intelligences to know if they could have been compacted enough to all fit within the singularity. I don't think the Big Bang theory is all that helpful one way or the other in the religious discussion. Further quantum theory injects sufficient uncertainty to preserve free will. Calvinism is a rather pointless religious view.

Sorry, that post was intended to be sarcastic, not serious

 

I believe that no scientific theory could possibly have any relevance to religion.  Science and religion cannot contradict each other because they are speaking about different subjects.

[rodheadlee]

Sorry, that post was intended to be sarcastic, not serious

 

I believe that no scientific theory could possibly have any relevance to religion.  Science and religion cannot contradict each other because they are speaking about different subjects.

If you read the article you would see that it aligns with our beliefs.

[mfbukowski]

If you read the article you would see that it aligns with our beliefs.

I did read the article and I agree that it does "align" with our beliefs, but that does not change what I said.  Star Wars aligns with our beliefs too, as did the TV series Battlestar Galactica, and the novels of Orson Scott Card, but none of those make the gospel "true" either.

 

Religious truth is not "out there" it is "in here" in your heart.  The kingdom of heaven is within you, not floating in space waiting to be confirmed or disproved by science.  The gospel can only be subjectively proven, not objectively by evidence, no matter how much the evidence "aligns" with out beliefs.

[Kaleb Webb]

 

This of course would necessarily move the traditional date of the Fall back to at least 8000 B.C. or so (Sumer, the first civilization) and one might need to work out some details depending on whether or not the state of no death was localized to the Garden or affected the whole Earth.

 

Sumer wasn't permanently settled until between 5000 and 4000 B.C. at the very earliest. 

[rodheadlee]

I did read the article and I agree that it does "align" with our beliefs, but that does not change what I said.  Star Wars aligns with our beliefs too, as did the TV series Battlestar Galactica, and the novels of Orson Scott Card, but none of those make the gospel "true" either.

 

Religious truth is not "out there" it is "in here" in your heart.  The kingdom of heaven is within you, not floating in space waiting to be confirmed or disproved by science.  The gospel can only be subjectively proven, not objectively by evidence, no matter how much the evidence "aligns" with out beliefs.

I never said it makes the gospel true. I just thought it was ironic.

[Stone holm]

Sorry, that post was intended to be sarcastic, not serious

 

I believe that no scientific theory could possibly have any relevance to religion.  Science and religion cannot contradict each other because they are speaking about different subjects.

That possibility crossed my mind. I think some science can make a difference to religion and some religion can make a difference to science. A better understanding of Christianity might have curbed some of the lines of scientific inquiry in early 1940's Germany, and might have caused us to hesitate before incinerating Hiroshima.

[mfbukowski]

That possibility crossed my mind. I think some science can make a difference to religion and some religion can make a difference to science. A better understanding of Christianity might have curbed some of the lines of scientific inquiry in early 1940's Germany, and might have caused us to hesitate before incinerating Hiroshima.

Good point.

 

What we need to understand is that our emotions/intuition/ spirits give us ethics and a sense of right and wrong and should actually be placed above science.

 

Science cannot deduce ethics, but ethics can tell us if we are using science ethically.

 

No experiment in the world can prove that murder is wrong or whether or not we should kill people in a war, only ethics can do that.  Scientists often think they are on the path to "truth" when all they can learn is how to do things.

 

Creating new technologies is nice, but there is no morality in it.  We as humans need morality more than we need science and humanity's most important truths have nothing to do with science.  That's why in the final analysis religion is more important than science, because religion creates values while science does not.

Edited February 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

Good point.

 

What we need to understand is that our emotions/intuition/ spirits give us ethics and a sense of right and wrong and should actually be placed above science.

 

Science cannot deduce ethics, but ethics can tell us if we are using science ethically.

 

No experiment in the world can prove that murder is wrong or whether or not we should kill people in a war, only ethics can do that.  Scientists often think they are on the path to "truth" when all they can learn is how to do things.

 

Creating new technologies is nice, but there is no morality in it.  We as humans need morality more than we need science and humanity's most important truths have nothing to do with science.  That's why in the final analysis religion is more important than science, because religion creates values while science does not.

I would agree. Unfortunately, a large segment of the religious community has reduced morality to sexual morality, and have injected religious significance into things that are not worth any religious time whatsoever but are important to our understanding the physical universe. When either science or religion evokes defensiveness in the other things tend to go badly and each side limits its openness with orthodoxy. When that happens, humanity suffers.

[thesometimesaint]

Good point.

 

What we need to understand is that our emotions/intuition/ spirits give us ethics and a sense of right and wrong and should actually be placed above science.

 

Science cannot deduce ethics, but ethics can tell us if we are using science ethically.

 

No experiment in the world can prove that murder is wrong or whether or not we should kill people in a war, only ethics can do that.  Scientists often think they are on the path to "truth" when all they can learn is how to do things.

 

Creating new technologies is nice, but there is no morality in it.  We as humans need morality more than we need science and humanity's most important truths have nothing to do with science.  That's why in the final analysis religion is more important than science, because religion creates values while science does not.

 

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein.

[mfbukowski]

Science shows us how to do things, religion tells you whether or not you should do them.

[Stone holm]

Which mfbukowski goes well until Science starts telling religion how to do things, and religion starts telling Science what it has to conclude.    And unfortunately, religion has not been terribly good at telling us whether or not to do something at least as a group, and unfortunately the group tends to have undue influence on what the individual actually does -- as the Middle East keeps reminding us.

[ERayR]

Which mfbukowski goes well until Science starts telling religion how to do things, and religion starts telling Science what it has to conclude.    And unfortunately, religion has not been terribly good at telling us whether or not to do something at least as a group, and unfortunately the group tends to have undue influence on what the individual actually does -- as the Middle East keeps reminding us.

 

Oh but that is just an aberration by a group of JV's.  At least that is what the powers that be would like us to believe.

[thesometimesaint]

Which mfbukowski goes well until Science starts telling religion how to do things, and religion starts telling Science what it has to conclude.    And unfortunately, religion has not been terribly good at telling us whether or not to do something at least as a group, and unfortunately the group tends to have undue influence on what the individual actually does -- as the Middle East keeps reminding us.

 

Science doesn't have a long history of telling people how to go to Heaven. It does a pretty good job of telling how the heavens go.

[Stone holm]

Science doesn't have a long history of telling people how to go to Heaven. It does a pretty good job of telling how the heavens go.

Correct, and religion does a pretty good job of telling individuals how to behave, now if it just did as good a job with groups we wouldn't have a lot of our problems. But never fear, science is doing a pretty good job of showing us how to kill off groups that misbehave.

[mfbukowski]

Correct, and religion does a pretty good job of telling individuals how to behave, now if it just did as good a job with groups we wouldn't have a lot of our problems. But never fear, science is doing a pretty good job of showing us how to kill off groups that misbehave.

In fact whatever ethics we do have as a society come from religion.

 

We are doing better than most think really.  If you think that some groups "should" (ie- you would be affirming their moral rules and disregarding the rest of humanity) behave as they are and are not "misbehaving" and are therefore worthy of survival, you should affirm their values by joining them.

 

I think that most of humanity agrees that selling young girls into sexual slavery and lopping off the heads of those with whom you disagree religiously is not a desirable behavior pattern.

 

Typically we lock up mass murderers or execute them so that they cannot continue their activities.   If you want to go and visit them and persuade them to act otherwise, then I suggest you get on a plane right away and get to work on it.

 

Best wishes.

[mfbukowski]

Science doesn't have a long history of telling people how to go to Heaven. It does a pretty good job of telling how the heavens go.

And I find it interesting that your clever quip, which is a lot of fun and I wish I came up with it,  actually relies on the REAL ambiguity of "heaven" vs "the heavens"

 

The former is a completely spiritual concept whereas the latter, "the heavens" clearly refers to "heavenly bodies" meaning stars etc.

 

So really although it is a really clever quip, it actually breaks down logically because the word is very clearly referring to two different categories of subject matter.

 

All I am saying is that the difference between religion and science is still obvious even when we bend the language over backwards to dig up a clever slogan.  It amazes me that many still confuse these subject matters though, and actually think that "heaven" can be described using the same methodology as one might use in describing "the heavens"

 

I don't know why people think that.   I guess they want to send up a rocket and take a picture of God.

 

I guess that is just as silly as thinking that evolution as a scientific theory conflicts with mankind being the children of God.

 

Oh well.

Edited February 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

And I find it interesting that your clever quip, which is a lot of fun and I wish I came up with it,  actually relies on the REAL ambiguity of "heaven" vs "the heavens"

 

The former is a completely spiritual concept whereas the latter, "the heavens" clearly refers to "heavenly bodies" meaning stars etc.

 

So really although it is a really clever quip, it actually breaks down logically because the word is very clearly referring to two different categories of subject matter.

 

All I am saying is that the difference between religion and science is still obvious even when we bend the language over backwards to dig up a clever slogan.  It amazes me that many still confuse these subject matters though, and actually think that "heaven" can be described using the same methodology as one might use in describing "the heavens"

 

I don't know why people think that.   I guess they want to send up a rocket and take a picture of God.

 

I guess that is just as silly as thinking that evolution as a scientific theory conflicts with mankind being the children of God.

 

Oh well.

 

I'm not that clever. It is but a minor league humorous riff at the expense of the true genius Galileo. I'm not confused a bit. It is the juxtaposition of the conflicting uses of the word "heaven" I find curious. I have no internal conflict with man as being a product of evolution and being the Children of God. But I think you'll admit that such a conflict does exist even on this Message Board.

[Stone holm]

In fact whatever ethics we do have as a society come from religion.

 

We are doing better than most think really.  If you think that some groups "should" (ie- you would be affirming their moral rules and disregarding the rest of humanity) behave as they are and are not "misbehaving" and are therefore worthy of survival, you should affirm their values by joining them.

 

I think that most of humanity agrees that selling young girls into sexual slavery and lopping off the heads of those with whom you disagree religiously is not a desirable behavior pattern.

 

Typically we lock up mass murderers or execute them so that they cannot continue their activities.   If you want to go and visit them and persuade them to act otherwise, then I suggest you get on a plane right away and get to work on it.

 

Best wishes.

Not exactly sure about that unless you consider humanism a religion, which I don't.

[mfbukowski]

Not exactly sure about that unless you consider humanism a religion, which I don't.

Huh?

 

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

And incidentally we worship a God who is Human.   To me that means we worship humanity and all it can possibly become.   Sounds pretty humanistic to me.

[Stone holm]

Huh?

 

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

And incidentally we worship a God who is Human.   To me that means we worship humanity and all it can possibly become.   Sounds pretty humanistic to me.

It means that I am not sure that religion has added a whole lot to our ethics, a lot of what we treasure as being humane which is what really counts is not necessarily derived from religion, but from the enlightenment. One could of course that most of the enlightenment was derived from religion, and in a sense you would be right. But religion as a whole, especially organized religion through the arc of history has not necessarily helped humanity treat each other well.

[thesometimesaint]

It means that I am not sure that religion has added a whole lot to our ethics, a lot of what we treasure as being humane which is what really counts is not necessarily derived from religion, but from the enlightenment. One could of course that most of the enlightenment was derived from religion, and in a sense you would be right. But religion as a whole, especially organized religion through the arc of history has not necessarily helped humanity treat each other well.

 

Religion is a short hand way of expressing our ethics. IE; If I claim to be a LDS(religion)  and don't act like one. One could legitimately question my commitment to the expressed ethics of being a LDS.

 

For all that the Enlightenment has changed our world, we mortals still haven't developed the ethics to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

 

I think that overall religion is a good thing to the extent that it motivates its adherents to be better than they would normally be. The Church is here to make bad men good and good men better.

 

Organized or unorganized atheism doesn't have a particularly good tract record either. As for me and my house we will follow the Lord.