Pope Francis declares Evolution and Big Bang Theory are right

[Lynn49]

Personally, I've never felt conflicted between the theories of evolution and my bible teachings. I didn't believe a "magic wand" was flourished in the air, and {{{poof!}}} things appeared. I always believed that God made it possible for nature to take its course, its own sweet time, to develop oner the many years to where we are now. So in my mind, it was all about the time-line...."poof" or natural development.

This pope, I'm pretty sure, isn't making the old, well-feathered, guys happy over there. Wouldn't be surprised if a " heart-attack" suddenly occurs.

[Patty Smyth]

Its amazing how so many people dont know this. The church actually was behind many scientific advances

Yeah Lemaitre "happened" to be a priest but the really did not practice, he was more of a teacher and scientist.

I am surprised he was not excommunicated for his work.

[MortgageQueen]

Well, evolution or big bang theory has never truly been proven, nor have scientists reached an agreement as to 1. How it happened or 2. If it truly happened.
Life is required to beget life.

Evolution requires that life spring from non-living matter. Ok. . . let's look at that. Supposedly somehow life (or a molecule) arose out of some type of inert material. After that happened those molecules "somehow" became self replicating. Unfortunately, science has never found any evidence of those said molecules. . .hence why it remains theory.

Cells contain insane amount of information. They communicate, interpret, and carry out functions according to their genetic code. That cell in turn holds thousands of protein molecules in order to function. Lets go further. Within each of those thousands of proteins are hundreds of amino acids that must be strung together a very particular way.

So if you just look at the one cell that's so small it's invisible to our eye, yet incredibly complicated, it doesn't seem credible it just occurred spontaneously.
Than there's the question how those supposed simple cells could develop into much much more complex cells. If you go back to the complexity of what a single cell, has, does, and can do. . .does it really make sense that random mutations and natural selection could produce such a sophisticated component? It's not unusual to hear a cell. . .a single solitary cell. . likened to a super computer.

Based on this, would you find it reasonable to say that any kind of functioning cell could jump from an inert material to become this amazing complex life?

[lecale]

.

[Lynn49]

[MortgageQueen]

Just because we don't understand how it all happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Creation is considered a complete and unquestionable theory by some. But if life is required to beget life, well I want to meet God's momma.

Creationism asks you to suspend all disbelief, and believe through faith, without questioning, without proof, that something really simplistic that even a layman can understand happened to create the universe.

Evolutionism asks for proof, and debate, of a scientific theory so complex that most layman cannot debate the details due to the complexity of the evidence.

Should we rely on a 2,000+ year old book for information about the natural world? Or should we only use that book as a political and philosophical guide?

Of course the Bible says, "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Cor 14:35) so if you want The Truth you're gonna have to ask your baby daddy.

Ahhhhh Lecale. . . many excellent points you make.
Just because we don't understand how it all happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Very true. But if we don't understand how evolution came about. . . and not even scientists agree in whole. . .should we really be calling it "fact"?. . .

Creation is considered a complete and unquestionable theory by some. Once again true. Some of them believe it because they were told to (much like kids are in school with evolution?) But some believe it because they've taken the time to study the Bible and cross reference it in it's entirety. THEN. . they've taken the time to look at science and the theory of evolution (or vice/versa) Which one made sense? Which one provided answers rather than more questions? Which one explains why humans are different from any other creature on the planet in that they care for the sick or are moved with compassion, feel "compelled" not to murder, steal, or lie? The fact is, there's a huge gulf between humans and (for instance) apes just in these matters

But if life is required to beget life, well I want to meet God's momma? I would refer you back to your original comment that Just because we don't understand how it all happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen. But. . . I can't show you "God's momma" just like you can't show me the beginning of "evolution". That said, here's something I think too many take for granted. If you looked at a car, a house, or a simple light bulb. . . would it ever occur to you they may have simply have evolved over time? No, of course not. You would assume some very smart or talented individual invented and created it in it's complex form. So why would we automatically assume those relatively simple creations needed an inventor but yet feel the most complex, unexplained, life forms that work in perfect unison to create just the right environment to support the billions forms of life just sort of mutated from a piece of lifeless matter? Do you think that question deserves further thought?

Creationism asks you to suspend all disbelief, and believe through faith, without questioning, without proof, that something really simplistic that even a layman can understand happened to create the universe. I'm probably gapping here but I'm not sure what you're saying here? or more so the latter part of the sentence. Maybe you can clarify that for me.
In regards to Creationism, you have to understand that there's a difference in Creationism and those that just believe in Creation. People who believe in Creationism, believe that the creation took place in a literal 6 days, but going back to my earlier reference as to how it is an absolute MUST to study and cross reference the bible to truly understand it. . . a "day" as stated in the bible in relation to God himself does not usually refer to "our" day that we know. If it was a literal "human" day, than how would you explain Genesis 2:4 (King James version) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, If we took that literally, than we would have to knock another 5 days off. Another much overlooked fact is the very 1st verse in the 1st chapter of Genesis. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. so what so interesting about that? Well, if you read on. . .the creative "days" hadn't begun yet. What does that mean? That we don't have a precise record of how long the galaxies and the earth existed, because they are not even part of the record of creation, other than that God created them. Creationists believe the earth, heavens and everything else were created in just 6 days. That's not my view based on my research.

As much as I'd love to continue, I do have to sleep, so I will catch you for tomorrow's chat. I will finish replying to rest of questions/comments.

[MortgageQueen]

Just an update. Have some family stuff going on... . . . will be back. . .

[MortgageQueen]

I'm back and although not sure anyone particularly cares, I will answer last questions. Lol

Should we rely on a 2,000+ year old book for information about the natural world? Or should we only use that book as a political and philosophical guide?

I think the answer to this question is to look at the facts. The fact is, it was the first book to describe many aspects of nature that was completely unknown during the times it was written. Additionally, it contains nothing that has actually been disproven in that regard.
I don't believe it was written to explain and go into depth about the world of science, as fascinating as it is.

Rather it is really much like a manual on "humans" as well as holding our history and our future. Who doesn't need a manual on a complicated creation? We have manuals for everything from our blenders to space craft. Who would you expect to know everything about these items? Well, of course its creator/maker.
Being that humans are so diverse, complicated and so far from perfection, it stands to reason we'd also need to use that manual quite frequently to keep "re-calibrating"
Unfortunately the majority of humans have discarded it like yesterdays news in their unending quest for independence, power, wealth, or whatever they may so desire. But really. . .it is a "perfect" guide. We just are not interested in the instructions.

Of course the Bible says, "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Cor 14:35) so if you want The Truth you're gonna have to ask your baby daddy.

As I've mentioned before, it is important to understand the Bible as a whole not just one verse or chapter, that at first glance seem offensive. There are several reasons that the Apostle Paul said that. One you may be surprised to know is that in that culture at that time, it was common for "new" Christians to interrupt the speaker with questions. This was "out of order" especially for women according to the Torah. The Bible's view of women has been incredibly distorted and misused through the centuries. So who would stand to gain from that? Would you guess, "Men"? Well, of course! Not all men of course, but since the beginning of "Sin" men have dominated women in one form or another.
Is this what God intended? Of course not. He views men and women equally important. Did you know he used women that were Prophetesses? He had it written in the Bible when he "corrected" Abraham's thinking by telling him he should listen to his wife. Do you have any idea how horrifying that would have been to Jewish men back then? (Not Abraham personally) When Jesus died and was resurrected, he made his First appearance to women. Again. . . that would defy all custom and logic to bestow such a privilege upon mere women. . . I could mention many many more examples, but those are just a few to point out women are absolutely NOT disrespected by God in any way. It's the imperfect society of humankind (which have been dominated by Men) that has created women's far than ideal position in past and present centuries.
That's not to say that God would have women teach in the congregation. He did in fact give that responsibility to men. (That's a whole other subject) But the Bible is riddled with examples of women doing and being shining examples to Both sexes and it is very clear that spiritual rewards are deserving equally to both men and women. . .no preference given.