Creationists Demand Equal Time On Cosmos

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

The point here is there isn't much day light between science and Christianity.

he was a christian first before a scientist...so a good assumption which can be made is...his belief in God helped him discover hidden mysteries

Don't make assumptions. This is why you're not a scientist.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Bull and you know it.

Georges Lemaître never once said Religion and science don't mix.
The stuff here is in clear contradiction to his biography

You can read his Bio

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847
​

During most of Lemaître's tenure in the academy, Pope Pius XII occupied the Chair of Peter. The Pope delivered his famous speech, "Un'Ora," after he analyzed Lemaître's science with the intent of developing a philosophical argument that one could ultimately use to prove the existence of God. This event immediately stimulated theological and scientific debate on the relationship of science and religion. Pius XII had provided two arguments relying on science to confirm philosophical positions that included God. First, he mentioned the instability of the universe. Pius XII thought it was logical that an immutable being had to have created the mutable physical world. Lemaître was not adamantly opposed to this line of reasoning. However, Pius' second idea was not as well received. The Pope said that the apparent organization that characterizes the entire universe was another indication. It appears that Pius XII's underlying assumption was that the supernatural act of divine creation began with the early stages described by the primeval atom hypothesis:

. . . contemporary science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux,which along with the matter there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation . . . Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, modern science has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the creator.

Statements such as these contradicted Lemaître's own strict distinction between the tools for investigating matters of science and matters of theology. "He realized quite fully the tentative and hypothetical character of scientific theories and for this reason alone, if for no others, opposed the use of such theories to support philosophical, theological or faith statements." As a result, Professor Lemaître wanted his scientific theories to be judged exclusively on their physical merit, keeping metaphysical implications completely separate.

 

[Chris.B]

^^you are probably the worst debater on this site. Truly horrible

Don't make assumptions. This is why you're not a scientist.

Well he did acknowledge God helped him in discovering things...after all he was a priest.

So yes the assumptions can be made.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Well he did acknowledge God helped him in discovering things...after all he was a priest.

Yeah. God helped one person on the planet discover the big bang theory while babies are starving to death in some parts of the world. God also helped Ray Lewis win a superbowl and Kevin Durant to win a basketball game.

 

[tmonster]

​

there is some meticulous sonning happening up in hurr

 

[Uncle_Ruckus]

What so wrong with believing God created the Big Bang? Makes more sense than the 7 day creation story to me.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Trully horrible

Your spelling certainly is.​

 

[Chris.B]

Yeah. God helped one person on the planet discover the big bang theory while babies are starving to death in some parts of the world. God also helped Ray Lewis win a superbowl and Kevin Durant to win a basketball game.

This is the problem of unbelievers....trying to understand God.
That's blasphemy.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

This is the problem of unbelievers....trying to understand God.
That's blasphemy

YEAH, MY BAD. TRYING TO USE MY BRAIN THAT GOD GAVE ME TO UNDERSTAND HIS STUPID fukkING ACTIONS. It's stupid and illogical because he ISN'T REAL.

 

[tmonster]

What so wrong with believing God created the Big Bang? Makes more sense than the 7 day creation story to me.

couldn't stop you if I wanted to *



*that's not what we talking about though....

 

[the cac mamba]

an appropriate analogy is whites complaining that blacks get to have a black history month

 

[tmonster]

an appropriate analogy is whites complaining that blacks get to have a black history month

pretty close

and that there should be some non-black history included in the delivery of black history celebrations in said month

 

[tmonster]

This is the problem of unbelievers....trying to understand God.
That's blasphemy.

all your claims in this this thread would amount to the same thing:zfg:

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2006/06/the-creation-myth.html​

Back in the early 1930s, the Nobel Laureate Paul Michael Dirac had a chance to discuss the expanding universe with Lemaître. Dirac was an atheist, and yet later he recalled, "When I was talking with Lemaître about this subject and feeling stimulated by the grandeur of the picture that he has given us, I told him that I thought cosmology was the branch of science that lies closest to religion. However Lemaître did not agree with me. After thinking it over he suggested psychology as lying closest to religion."

Cosmology, like evolution, brought the issue of science and faith to the forefront as soon as Lemaître detailed his expansion model and its origin with at time t=0. If there was a temporal origin to the universe's evolution, then it seemed to many scientists to imply the act of creation. Arthur Stanley Eddington, a Quaker, certainly thought so and found the whole idea repugnant.

In Lemaître's view it did not have to imply that.

In many ways, he felt, the argument was based on a misunderstanding of terms -- one that many scientists are prone to make and one theologians are less likely to: and that assumption is, what a theologian or philosopher means by creation is the same thing as what a scientist means by origin. Lemaître indeed would not ever have allowed a term like creation to be used credibly in a scientific paper. By its very nature, the word describes something that is empirically unverifiable -- how, in principle, could any experiment or theoretical quantification be made of an act or process (for want of a better term) that by definition precedes all things, including time, space and matter? Lemaître never made this mistake.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html
​

It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction.