Vatican celebrates big bang to dispel faith-science conflict

May 8, 2017 by Nicole Winfield
In this April 15, 2011 file photo, Brother Guy Consolmagno, a Jesuit astronomer at the Vatican's Observatory, right, shows to visitors the Globe of planet Mars from the collection of the Specola Vaticana. The Vatican Observatory has invited leading scientists and cosmologists to talk black holes, gravitational waves and space-time singularities as it honors Monsignor George Lemaire, a Jesuit cosmologist considered one of the fathers of the idea that the universe began with a gigantic explosion. (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia)

The Vatican is celebrating the big-bang theory. That's not as out of this world as it sounds.

The Vatican Observatory has invited leading scientists and cosmologists to talk black holes, and space-time singularities as it honors the late Jesuit cosmologist considered one of the fathers of the idea that the universe began with a gigantic explosion.

The Tuesday-Friday conference honoring Monsignor George Lemaitre is being held at the Vatican Observatory, founded by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 to help correct the notion that the Roman Catholic Church was hostile to science. The perception has persisted in some circles since Galileo's heresy trial 400 years ago, even though the and Catholic universities around the globe have produced top-notch science over the centuries.

In 1927, Lemaitre was the first to explain that the receding of distant galaxies was the result of the expansion of the universe, a result he obtained by solving equations of Einstein's of general relativity.

Lemaitre's theory was known as the "primeval atom," but it is more commonly known today as the big-bang theory.

"He understood that looking backward in time, the universe should have been originally in a state of high energy density, compressed to a point like an original atom from which everything started," according to a press release from the Observatory.

The head of the Vatican Observatory, Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, says Lemaitre's research proves that you can believe in God and the big-bang theory.

"Lemaitre himself was very careful to remind people—including Pope Pius XII—that the creative act of God is not something that happened 13.8 billion years ago. It's something that happens continually," Consolmagno said Monday.

Believing merely that God created the big bang means "you've reduced God to a nature god, like Jupiter throwing lightning bolts. That's not the God that we as Christians believe in," he said.

Christians, he said, believe in a supernatural God who is responsible for the existence of the , while "our science tells us how he did it."

Explore further: Universe will end with a bang, or a whimper, says Vatican astronomer

Related Stories

Reverence for the heavens

January 14, 2011

For some, the contemplation of the cosmos is a religious experience. Vatican astronomers say this can lead to profound insights about ourselves and the nature of the universe.

Theorists apply loop quantum gravity theory to black hole

May 31, 2013

(Phys.org) —Physicists Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin of University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay, and Louisiana State University respectively, have applied the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) to a simplified ...

Pope may embrace intelligent design

August 28, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI may reportedly embrace the theory of intelligent design, possibly heralding a fundamental shift in the Vatican's view of evolution.

Recommended for you

How other people affect our interpersonal space

May 24, 2018

Have you ever felt the urge to cross the road or move seats on a train after a conversation taking place nearby suddenly becomes aggressive? Well, for the first time a scientific study has shown how the size of your interpersonal ...

99 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) May 08, 2017
"Believing merely that God created the big bang means "you've reduced God to a nature god, like Jupiter throwing lightning bolts. That's not the God that we as Christians believe in," he said.
Christians, he said, believe in a supernatural God who is responsible for the existence of the universe, while "our science tells us how he did it."

-Nice try. Typical xian doubletalk. 'God didnt merely create the universe, he used science.'

WTF
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2017
Re the pic I assume he will be declaring that golden shock on his forehead a stigmata in his bid at beatification.

Carbolic acid worked for Padre Pio si?
atomless
4.3 / 5 (6) May 08, 2017
Convenient how science explains nature and religion gives god the credit.
777markandrew
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2017
@Lex Tolonis
"Luke 19:27 - (JC to the goon squad)"

As an agnostic I have to point out your deceptive quote. Luke 19:27 is the last verse of a parable. It tells the tail of a greedy and sinful nobleman that goes of to "receive for himself a kingdom". In his absence he left 3 servants in charge of various sums of money. In the end one doubled his portion, another gains 50% and the third gained nothing. The nobleman is granted his kingdom but the people of that kingdom reject his rule. Upon his return the newly minted "king" takes everything away from the poor servant (he didn't even put money in bank for the nobleman to earn "usury") and gives all he has to the "rich and prosperous servant. The the Evil and greedy king demands all whom opposed him be brought before him and killed by the sword.
777markandrew
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2017
"Jesus" didn't command his enemies to be killed as you suggested. That is out of context!

It's an allegory for either Herod the Great or his Son Herod Antipater. Which of the two was the target of this parable may always remain a mystery but, it is a message that is all to reliant today.
777markandrew
3.7 / 5 (6) May 09, 2017
You may not believe in their theology (Hell I don't agree with their theology) but lying about an aligorical parable of historic figures placed within a fictional narrative isn't very productive IMHO. At least the Catholic Church has contributed to the sciences regardless of your "FEELINGS" on theology. That is what this "article" is ment to convey....They accept the evidence when it suits their needs.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) May 10, 2017
Not a result of expansion. A result of our limit of view... (13.4 approx. in any direction).
(Hopefully, James Webb will change all that...)
It's the limit of our "perception bubble".
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) May 10, 2017
It's an allegory for either Herod the Great or his Son Herod Antipater. Which of the two was the target of this parable may always remain a mystery but, it is a message that is all to reliant today
-An old trick. So what is allegory and what is not? Who decides?

The exodus and the solomonic/davidic kingdoms must be allegory because archeology tells us they never happened. So were the 10 commandments metaphorical?

There is no mt Sinai you know. Maybe god zapped it like all the other evidence, and replaced it with totally convincing counter-evidence. His right you know.

But then you are left wondering why the god of impeccable morality would lie to you to find out how much you trust him.

And you might then wonder why you choose to worship such a beast.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) May 10, 2017
https://sciencex.com/profile/user/777markandrew/

Luke 19:27 - (JC to the goon squad), "Bring all my enemies here who do not want me to rule over them and kill them with your swords in front of me."

Nice to see that you can't even read.

Not only is it in the bible, so that makes it true, but I was there when I said it.

Double sux for you.

And I guess that makes you Jesus Christ....
(at least, in your own mind...)
Our societal structure sure does produce some delusional complex's...
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 10, 2017
Vatican celebrates big bang to dispel faith-science conflict

LOL, that is because the Vatican promoted the BB.
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory [Big Bang]. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing..... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Hannes Alfvén
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2017
@Lex Talonis
Luke 19:11-28 is a PARABLE! It says so right there in the text. Only ignorant people quote text that they have no understanding of what is written. To suggest, as you have, that "Jesus" was commanding his followers to kill people is dishonest at the least and outright deceitful at its worst. It's like a creationist using one sentence from Darwins 'Origin of Species" to try to make a case against evolution heh. Pure ignorance.

BTW, I'm agnostic not a theist. I've just learnt that there are better ways to repudiate theology besides using deceit and lies.
777markandrew
3 / 5 (2) May 10, 2017
@Otto
I can tell you are not familiar with scholarly literary criticism of the NT. That's fine. I can assure you that Herod the Great and his son were indeed very real people. The majority of scholars in the field of biblical criticism all agree that Luke 19:11-28 is probably about one of them.

And as you should know, the OT was written during or after the "Babylon exile" and the reign of Cyrus the Great, King of Persia to legitimize the jews claim of historic rule of Judah and the Northern kingdom of Israel. It says so in the OT itself. "Ezra" supposedly penned the stories as he knew them from oral tradition but in reality there were many authors. There is no point getting into the mangled Greak translation known as the LXX made for the Library of Alexandria. It's that translation the NT is based on.

For the record, I an Agnostic not a Theist. I agree there is no evidence for David and the exodus. So please, don't ask me silly question about faith, not that you were sincere
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) May 10, 2017
I can tell you are not familiar with scholarly literary criticism of the NT
-I can tell you are familiar only with the religionist scholarly literary criticism which supports your view of biblical inerrancy.
And as you should know, the OT was written during or after the "Babylon exile" and the reign of Cyrus the Great, King of Persia to legitimize the jews claim of historic rule of Judah and the Northern kingdom of Israel
You should know that there is no dependable way of knowing for sure when the bible was written.
It says so in the OT itself
-The bible says so so it must be true? Ahaahaaaa

"Mosaic authorship of the Torah was unquestioned by both Jews and Christians until the European Enlightenment, when the systematic study of the five books led the majority of scholars to conclude that they are the product of many hands and many centuries."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) May 10, 2017
I an Agnostic not a Theist
Sure you are.
...no evidence for David and the exodus
"Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

-ie totally convincing contrary evidence that the major bible stories could not have occurred because other things were going on which would have made them impossible.
777markandrew
3 / 5 (2) May 10, 2017
Lol, yeah, that went completely over your head. We are on the same page but you don't seem to realize that fact. Here, an overview of biblical criticism:

https://en.m.wiki...riticism

They use multiple scientific disciplines to narrow down the dates of composition for the text we have today. As I said in my last post. The OT is actually the product of many authors so your quote isn't adding anything to what I've already said. The LXX has a solid date of Composition.

And yes, you can be very sure that I am Agnostic!

Your second post adds nothing as well. As I said in my last post to you. The OT was written after the fact to legitimize a claim to land. Just as every "History" written in antiquity, things are always wildly embellished to convey a political or theological idea. Let me be very clear here. None of it is actual history!

I'm not sure what you're trying to debate here. Questioning my stance on theology? That will get you nowhere with me no1.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2017
The LXX has a solid date of Composition
Again

"Mosaic authorship of the Torah was unquestioned by both Jews and Christians until the European Enlightenment, when the systematic study of the five books led the majority of scholars to conclude that they are the product of many hands and many centuries."
I'm not sure what you're trying to debate here
I'm debating in my mind whether you're a troll or not.

Pussytard is that you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2017
BTW 'mark' if youre still around
Luke 19:11-28 is a PARABLE!
Of course. A parable of what jesus promises to do to his enemies when he returns during the end times.

"The Parable of the Ten Minas
"The enemies who rejected the king in the parable are representative of the Jewish nation that rejected Christ while He walked on earth—and everyone who still denies Him today. When Jesus returns to establish His kingdom, one of the first things He will do is utterly defeat His enemies (Revelation 19:11–15). It does not pay to fight against the King of kings."

IOW beast.

And of course the parable is suitable for use by believers at any time for dispatching their own godless heathen enemies.

Doing gods work can be very satisfying.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2017
When the Pope apologizes for burning Giordano Bruno alive, I might start listening.

Until then, crickets.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2017
Let me be frank: the Dominicans should be ejected from the Catholic church. Until I see that, I will remain extremely skeptical. Let them do penance for 500 years or so, at minimum. Until then, I will not believe anything the Catholics say about science.
777markandrew
2.3 / 5 (3) May 11, 2017
@Otto
Is everyone here as pugnacious as you?

1. You falsely assume my beliefs the go on to mock the false narrative of your own creation.
2. You completely misrepresent biblical criticism.
3. You question my stated beliefs as if I was lying.
4. You continue to mock the false narrative of your own creation after I corrected you.
5. You comment on the age of the Septuagint (classic Koine Greek aka LXX) with a completely unrelated commentary on the Torah (Hebrew text).
6. You openly challenged my integrity and identity.

And you have the gawl to call ME a troll? wow

You obviously have no interest in the subject. Personally, I could give two shits about the theology of the text. To each their own. I highly recommend you take the advice in this link seriously:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H0OaeMYTbs4

https://en.m.wiki...ptuagint

https://en.m.wiki...f_Hinnom
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2017
@777, sorry man but the Dominicans still have a lot of power, and they're the Catholic fundies. Disband the Inquisition and kick the Dominicans out until they've done penance for their violence and torture and have purged themselves of sin. Move right along to the Baptists. Then I might start believing anybody in the Christian beliefs has any respect for science.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2017
I mean, seriously, "preservation of the doctrine of the faith" is implicitly the claim of Babblical literalism, which is obviously ridiculous. It's time to accept the writings of the drunken stone age sheep herders as allegory at best, certainly not literal truth. At least the Jesuits have a rhetorical leg to stand on; the Dominicans are frozen in the 3rd Century. To be believable the Church has to penalize the Dominicans for torture. It's antithetical to the Gospel.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2017
I'm totally OK with the Catholics accepting reality. I'd respect them for it. What I object to is propaganda pieces and incremental acceptance as each thing their literalists claim is shot down. Admit reality. I have no problems with religion if it admits to reality; it's the denial of, for example. evolution, that bothers me. Sorry the Babble is not literally true. Jebus didn't create life on Earth. Maybe Gawd created the circumstances that allowed it to evolve, but we'd have a lively argument over it.

Get over it.

If you can't argue successfully with real atheists, you fail.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
@Da Schneib
Obviously you have never encountered a true agnostic before. All of your dogmatic spittle is meaningless to me. Try asking intelligent questions that have nothing to do with theology. There is nothing wrong with viewing religious texts as works of fiction. They can be critiqued just as any other works of fiction. I have no comment on your backhanded take on unprovable theology.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
@777 I know lots of people who call themselves agnostics.

None of them call what I say "spite."

You are a fundie troll.

Good bye.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
BTW, the fact you have no comment on Bruno speaks volumes: you claim to be a "Christian," but support burning people alive.

Disgusting. I have no time for fundies and see no reason for them to live, and I'm not very interested in what kind of so-called "religion" they claim to follow. Go burn yourself alive. You believe in it, after all.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
The word was sittle not spite but okay. Take for example Ottos last post. He is confusing Luke 19:11-28 with the almost identical parable in Matt 25:14-32. The parable in Matt is what he claims the Luke verse mean. Only people that don't know the source material will be fooled
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
I am NOT a Christian. ... what gave you that impression?

https://en.m.wiki...osticism
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
Are you confusing agnostic with gnostic?
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
I guess, to paraphrase you: If you can't successfully argue with an agnostic you fail. heh
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
@777, I still see no comment on Bruno.

Sorry I don't have any respect for your book about the super magic daddy in the sky written by the drunken stone age sheep herders. Get over it. Start that by admitting that the Catholic Church, led at that time by the Society of Dominic, tortured people to death and claimed it was "for jebus."

Then there's evolution and you apparently have no comment on that either.

Stop pretending to be an agnostic; they have enough doubt not to get all exercised when someone calls their magic book names. It doesn't matter to them; they're actually agnostic. You aren't. Which makes you a liar. And you're misrepresenting them here, which is disrespectful. I am tormenting you since I know quite a few of them.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
If the Catholic Church wants to reconcile faith and science, they've still got a very long way to go.

And sending Dominican dominionist Catholics to troll and spam on science sites ain't gonna git 'er done.

Send a Jesuit. They're not so proud.

Say, isn't pride one of the Seven Deadly Sins? It's #1 IIRC. I think Lucifer got cast down for that one. Just sayin'.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2017
DS,
I looked up Fillipo (Giordano) Bruno on Wiki. An interesting story.
What I found interesting, as well, was reference to a couple of writings on "magic"...:-)
I'm gonna have to definitely research this guy. Kinda sounds like Newton's sorta crowd...:-)
It also stated he was a Dominican friar. Fried by his own gang? Sheesh....
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
@Whyde, be aware that there was considerable propaganda. He was burned alive because they couldn't get at Copernicus who was already dead.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
And just to add to the grue, so you have a clear idea how evil these Dominicans are, his tongue was nailed to the roof of his mouth before they lit the fire so he couldn't say any last words.

These Dominican dominionists are real a-holes. Sorry, the Church should excommunicate them for a couple of hundred years as heretics if they had any stones. They don't so we get this creeping crapola instead. There's no religion involved; it's all politics.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2017
@Whyde, be aware that there was considerable propaganda. He was burned alive because they couldn't get at Copernicus who was already dead.

They were a tuffer crowd, back then. Less imagination, I guess...
All I know is, he sounds like a guy I would have hung around with...:-)
Oh, and...
Careful, your catholic roots are showin'...:-)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2017
LOL, @Whyde I am an atheist, the son of two atheists, the grandson of four and the great-grandson of six.

You'll find that atheists often know more about religions than their adherents do. In my rebellious adolescence I was baptized as an Episcopalian. I did Babble Study for a few weeks until they all figured out I had read more of it than they had.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2017
@Da Schneib
Sorry, I don't know about a Bruno. I could care less about theology. It is a root to depravity IMHO.

I do not believe in the bible as theological athority. That is your assumption of me. To say "MY super magic daddy in the sky" is your own projection.

Catholics are a bunch of ancestor worshipers IMHO. They burn incense to Mary and pray to "saints". Things they use to reject. They were willing to die to prove that point (martyr) in the 2nd century A.D. The letter from Pliny the younger to emperor Trajan proves that point.

http://www.earlyc...iny.html

Please, don't expect me to comment on theology. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend agnostic tenets.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
His name's been said here several times: Giordano Bruno, and if you think I believe for a second you don't know who he was, think again.

And it has nothing to do with theology. It's history, and it's part of the history of the Catholic Church, which you will note we are discussing here, and the history of science.

Bruno was burned alive with his tongue nailed to the roof of his mouth by order of Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine because he had the temerity to state that he believed there were other worlds and people living on them, and because he espoused the Copernican theory of the Solar System, and they couldn't burn Copernicus because he was dead, to prove the power of the Church.

And your little sect did it.

Now stop posing.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
Just for reference, Domenican dominionist, I am familiar with your kind, and dislike them extremely. You are dishonest, dishonorable, and believe that lying for your little tin jebus will get you pie in the sky when you die.

You are no agnostic; you wouldn't have objected to me calling your magic jebus book names if you were.

Next time, after you've made a sockpuppet, try to keep in mind that you will meet real, scary atheists who are smarter than you are and will see through your lies.
777markandrew
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
"my sect did it"? Seriously, i have no clue what you are talking About. I'm a 40 yr old dude from the State of Michigan. I don't know whom you think I am but you come across as the fool. With all honesty, this is my first comment here. I guess I should have expected nothing less from the comment section of a 2nd rate laymens' Science website.

You my friend have no clue how wrong you actually are. That's fine though. There is plenty of time learn
777markandrew
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
your reference to magic tells me you are definitely confusing agnostic with gnostic. Please, get your nouns straight. I am not a gnostic!
777markandrew
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
I'm about to visit dream land but I'm curious Da Schneib. Is English your 1st language? It's totally cool if not, I have friends around the world so I have experience addressing things for you to understand if English is your 2nd language.

Anyhow, Zzz time. I'll check back
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
Hello 'mark'
The word was sittle not spite but okay. Take for example Ottos last post. He is confusing Luke 19:11-28 with the almost identical parable in Matt 25:14-32. The parable in Matt is what he claims the Luke verse mean. Only people that don't know the source material will be fooled
'I' am not confusing anything. The quote I provided came from GotQuestions.org, a typical religionist apologetics site. Why don't you argue with them?

So we find out that the bible can be twisted to say whatever believers want it to say, including what it actually says. So we ought to just read what it SAYS to be safe.

I just read an apologetic about a Surah that says 'don't be friends with xians and jews'. The twister merely retranslated the word 'friend's to mean 'patron'. As if that makes it any better.

Religion is all one thing and it's all bad.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
Here's how a religionist explains parables;

"Parables are told so that only those who really care will come to know the truth. Not so much because they understand the parable, but because they care enough to ask what it means after the story is finished and hang around long enough to have it explained to them."

-Explained to them by who? A more learned religionist perhaps who knows how to twist it into something pertinent of course.

And we all know that pertinence sometimes means persecution of enemies.

At least the OT prophets came right out and said it. Jesus loved double entendres like 'sell your cloak and buy a sword' and 'I have come to bring not peace but a sword'.

But he also said that he wasn't there to replace the law but to fulfill it, every last word of it, and so are his minions.

And that includes all the nasty bits about persecuting, killing, stealing, raping, ethnically cleansing, and etc.

All there waiting for 'pertinence'.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 12, 2017
They're very persistent.

Notice how there's no answer on evolution? Notice how there's no answer on Bruno?

I did.

How can an agnostic be agnostic if they don't know why they should be agnostic?

Pro tip: the Babble is not why agnostics are agnostic.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (2) May 13, 2017
@Da Schneib
What? Agnosticism is logical not a religion. The main difference between Atheists and Agnostics is that Atheists outright deny religion to the point of hostile proselytizing. Agnostics are indifferent to religion.

According to Agnosticism, I can't make a definitive conclusion based on an unprovable hypothesis. For example take the Star Trek warp engine. Some people will say; they are completely possible to make. Others will say; that is impossible, can't be done. Agnostics say; we have no proof they can be made but let's see where the evidence takes us. It can go either way.

The same is applied to religion. Some say; it's absolute truth. Others say; only idiots believe, it's completely false. Agnostics say; There is zero proof for or against.

....
777markandrew
3 / 5 (2) May 13, 2017
Today we study Homer and ancient Greek civilization but not many people still advocate that Zeus is an actual deity. The same will be said of our modern bible one day. The majority of people today see nothing wrong with the study of Homers works, seen as Divinely inspired in antiquity, as it was passed down to us. Unfortunately the same very of our modern bible, to be studied as a piece of literature and not divinely inspired, is met with complete hostility by some.

That's unfortunate IMHO
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) May 13, 2017
LOL, @777 apparently hasn't met a real atheist yet.

Atheists are interested in religion, but not very tolerant of proselytizers. We are a-theists; we don't believe in supernatural beings and think stories about them are mythology. The hostility has developed due to persecution and misguided evangelical attempts, often followed by insults, from religionists. Idiotic opinions like "I'd never trust an atheist" tend to reinforce hostile attitudes towards believers in stone age superstitions like you. Deliberate mischaracterizations as Satanists or other religionists of some reviled (whether justified or not) character work to create further hostility.

Sorry but I've had a lot of bad experiences with this, and you are merely another.

And you still have nothing to say about evolution or about the torture murder of Giordano Bruno; I still think you're one of these dominionist fools posing.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2017
I'll be frank, @777: your denial of the torture murder of Giordano Bruno by the Dominicans in the Catholic Church and your unwillingness to endorse evolution are pretty strong evidence that you are not what you say you are. That you don't admit to understanding why is just evidence of doubling down, which most liars do as a habit.

I'm not going to argue about the Babble. I argue about facts, not mythologies. That's what atheists do.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2017
Yeah, theology has led to many persecutions. Honestly, I know nothing about this Burno fella. I'm pretty sure he not the first nor the last to be persecuted by ignorance.

I fully support evolution.

You don't have to be so hostile to me just because I am indifferent to the concept of theology and don't outright reject anyone whom has an opposing view. Read your last post and truly ask yourself if that is being as hostile as I stated in my last post.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2017
Bruno's torture murder has nothing to do with theology, and it's the fact that you keep denying it and pretending it does, when it's a pretty infamous incident in the long infamy of the Inquisition, that marks you for what you are.

If you want to talk about Babble quotes, let's start with "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." There's no such thing as witches. Basically this legitimizes the torture murder of old women.

As for evolution, if you "fully support evolution," explain how it works.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2017
As I keep saying over and over; I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS BUNO FELLA. People are put to death unjustly everyday. If you wish me to comment on this one case please, provide a link. I'd be happy to read about it.

"Thou shalt not suffer a wich to live" is babble. ... I agree. Ignorance

https://en.m.wiki...s_Darwin

He laid the foundation but there is still much to be learnt
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2017
You don't need a link for the Catholic torture murder of Giordano Bruno. Pretending you do marks you for what you are: a dominionist Dominican denier.

Not providing links; this is well enough known that if you are playing the "give me a link" game you're already proven dishonest.

There isn't "much to be learnt" on Darwin. The second half of the theory of evolution is available to anyone who cares to state it, and it is obvious you do not. This was a test. You failed.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2017
If it's a Catholic torture and Murder then how does that have nothing to do with theology?

Asking for source material is what one does when they have not clue what the other person is talking about.

If you think we know all there is to know about DNA and RNA and how the environment influences gene expression then you are sorely mistaken.

I rest my case. YOU are nothing but a troll and with no intention of having a civilized discussion. Not providing information on a topic you demand answers to is a breach of law in my country. I'm not going to do your work for you heh.

It's obvious to me English is not your 1st language so I think you are loosing something in translation. All said and done ....

Ten un excelente fin de semana
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2017
What the Dominicans did to Bruno is history, not theology, and your continuing attempts to ignore it are as transparent as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on its shirt.

Your denial of evolution is noted and proves what you are; I don't feel the need to present further evidence beyond your own statements.

Your feeble attempts to play language games are as transparent as your feeble attempts to deny evolution; you don't know the second half of Darwin's Theory, because you are a Dominican dominionist denier scumbag. Your own words prove what you are. Stop lying for jebus, dominionist.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2017
lol ... okay dude. Your mild manners convinced me. I must me some Spanish anti-someting or other. After all, the Catholics did it but it had nothing to do with Catholicism, whatever it was they did in your country. I'll never know though because you refuse to back up your claims. That seems like sound logic on your part.

I'm not even convinced the biblical "Jesus", as depicted in the NT, even existed. If I were a theists, that statement would send me strait to hell. But I'm so very glad you set me right.

You know about Chief Blackfoot right? Chief Sitting bull? Geronimo? How about Standing Bear or Red Cloud? I'm glad you are willing to research each of them to reply in a concise and articulate manner.

Golly gee, your right. DNA, RNA and gene expression has nothing to do with evolution.

My my, what would have I ever done if you hadn't trolled here?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) May 13, 2017
link. I'd be happy to read about it
More evidence the troll.
"Thou shalt not suffer a wich to live" is babble. ... I agree. Ignorance
Actually witches by and large were midwives, teaching the village women about contraception and ways to induce abortion.

Not ignorance. Anything that restricts flock growth is evil incarnate.
kochevnik
not rated yet May 13, 2017
Agnostic - someone who has no idea. See Also: Hurt feelings report
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) May 13, 2017
Agnostic - someone who has no idea. See Also: Hurt feelings report
Where you been? Putin put you in gulag?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2017
You are either incredibly ignorant, @777, or you are a liar.

Since agnosticism is a stance that is not compatible with the ignorance you show, the conclusion is obvious.

Your religion allows you to tell any lie and obtain forgiveness for it, if the lie is told in the service of the religion. That you do not know this, or do not admit it, is sufficient proof of your perfidy.

That you assume no one knows this means that you have not met anyone smart enough to figure it out. Welcome to the science site. Your lies have been not merely detected but anticipated. Now go home.

The fact is, you assume atheists and agnostics are ignorant of your religion. Agnostics are doubtful about it; atheists are contemptuous, and for good reason having been attacked for nothing but unbelief. You are, as I said earlier, disgusting and despicable.

Above all stop lying; it is disrespectful.

The correct phrase is "evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION." Like I said, you fail.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2017
@Da Schneib

Could you please say how I've lied or how I am ignorant? I'm just curious if it was something I said or a figment of your imagination.

Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest are both sound ways to view the origin of our natural world but only a fool will think they are the last word considering what we now know about gene expression and the influence of the environment and and heredity based on the study of identical twins.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2017
@777, now we get to it. I figured we would.

No, nothing about gene expression or the influence of the environment changes anything about evolution by natural selection. Not even epigenetics. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection stands to this day, and is one of the most successful scientific theories of all time. Genetics is merely the mechanism by which it works; but that it works, and how it works, remains unchanged by molecular biology.

Handwaving at nonexistent studies that supposedly "deny evolution" will not help you.

I have already explained what you lied about. I was very direct. That you choose to ignore it and pretend I didn't is just more evidence of what you are.

Your agenda is obvious: to inject FUD. It's the same thing deniers of all stripes do. You are as transparent as a 3 year old child, to anyone paying attention.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2017
Just to put it in perspective, here is someone who ably quotes from the Babble, denies evolution calling anyone who believes it a "fool," pretends that lying to unbelievers will "send them to hell," denies the culpability of the Church in the torture murder of Giordano Bruno, and claims to be agnostic without actually expressing the tenets of agnosticism.

Draw your own conclusions.

Note also that Mark and Andrew were Apostles (Mark actually wrote one of the Gospels), and that 7 is associated with holiness in Babble numerology. Feel free to google "christian numerology 7" for a sample.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2017
[contd]
Note also that Andrew is the author of a Gospel that did not make it into the Babble; research "apocrypha of Andrew" if you want a sample of that.

Unlike your lies you claim will "send you to hell," I am not at all certain the son of Joseph the Carpenter was not a historical person; I tend more toward the opinion that he and his followers started a revolution that eventually conquered the Roman Empire, the most powerful political force of his region and day, and that continues to this day. It's an impressive accomplishment, but it doesn't prove any association with any putative super magic daddy in the sky any more than Sun Tzu's Art of War does.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2017
Getting back to the original piece, I will continue to be strongly skeptical of the Catholic Church's supposed switch to rationalism until they repudiate the torture murder of Giordano Bruno and accept evolution by natural selection; and because they have embraced "lying to the unfaithful" even after that I will continue to be suspicious.

As an atheist, I have no problem with Deists, or at least not most of them. Supernatural forces have no effect in our world; everything that happens does so as the effect of a natural force. If someone chooses to believe that these natural forces are "directed" by a supernatural entity, I cannot logically deny it, but I point out that it violates the principle of parsimony, also known as Occam's Razor.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2017
My goodness, you had an essay as a reply. I just asked how I've lied.

Your opinion that gene expression has nothing to do with lung or gill breathing is very telling.

You say a lot of words but how have I lied? Don't let your own imagination get in the way of reality.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2017
I can not make this anymore pain. I'm sorry if it goes over your head. THERE IS NO THE SAME AMOUNT OF PROOF FOR A GOD AS THERE IS FOR NO GOD ... THAT PROOF EQUALS ZERO!!!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2017
More FUD.

Sorry, dominionist numerologist, you are sussed and a proven liar for jebus.

That you cannot answer shows your basic dishonesty. And your dishonesty shows the paucity of your evidence.

A real agnostic wouldn't deny evolution, wouldn't quote the Babble in context against opponents while supporting quotes taken by believers, wouldn't lie about the consequences of simple lies to convert unbelievers, and wouldn't lie about Bruno. You are caught but good, dominionist.

If the Babble is correct you are going to hell for your beliefs, not your acts.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2017
If the Catholic Church really wished to be viewed as legitimate by the atheists, they'd acknowledge evolution by natural selection and excommunicate the Dominicans for discrediting their faith. We wouldn't join the Church, but we'd acknowledge it as legitimate. This probably will never happen because it would require them to accept Deism.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2017
I CANNOT BELIEVE IN A GOD THAT IS UNPROVEN.

Say what you want to make yourself feel fuzzy and warm inside. You never said how I lied. therfore I have proven you as a troll.

Good day sir!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2017
Yeah, you've got no where else to go after being proven a liar.

Whatever, dude.

Grow up.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2017
I've never been Catholic my whole life.... I've been Lutheran, producent and in my most recent youth Pentecostal. I reject all of that now. Why do you have a problem with that?
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2017
As I've said, GOOD DAY SIR. You obviously don't care about the truth and have made you your own narrative. GOOD DAY SIR!
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2017
You nevet prove me a lier
... Don't be an Asshole ... be honest... how have I lied?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) May 15, 2017
@777markandrew.

You're being 'targeted' by our resident' drunk-poster' (and sufferer of tourette syndrome compulsive attacking/insulting 'needs'). You have the condolences of me/PO forum (ie, those NOT in the 'gang' of bot-voting insult merchant trolls, whose 'history' here is to pretend they care about objective science method/discourse while breaking every objectivity/fairness principle on which those were founded). You will have noted by now his 'tactics' of misconstruing your posts and mis-attributing his own 'version' to you and then attacking his own strawman/imaginary 'characterization' of you/your comments. The poor suffering sod usually starts calling you 'liar' etc etc with such 'certainty' and self-confidence that he obviously never stops to consider he may be WRONG (which he has been proven to have been all too often over the years now, especially whenever he has tried his above tactics/crap with me and finally found I was RIGHT all along). Relax. Pity him.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2017
I was explicit, direct, and straightforward about exactly what you lied about.

Pretending I never said it is proof you're lying. @777.
777markandrew
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2017
Ummm ... What? Do you understand I Can't believe in an unproven God? You lack of English compression must be your problem. I couldn't understand a single line of of your last post. Please, tell me why I don't believe in God again?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2017
Could you please say how I've lied or how I am ignorant?
@777markandrew
if i may interrupt your above whatever - you posted
You comment on the age of the Septuagint (classic Koine Greek aka LXX) with a completely unrelated commentary on the Torah (Hebrew text).
it wasn't unrelated

the septuagint is the Torah translated (abrahamic religion and all that)
[A Rahlfs - Septuaginta, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935]

you should understand that the upstart xtians are latecomers who (literally) absconded with the Torah text for their own sake
Seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek, for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria
-[Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint, Michael A. Knibb, Ed., London: T&T Clark, 2004.]
777markandrew
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2017
@Stumpy

Yes, you are correct. The Konie Greek is a late translation after the original Hebrew. The LXX is dated to the 3rd BC for the Library of Alexandria. The Hebrew must be somewhat older .... do you agree?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) May 15, 2017
The Hebrew must be somewhat older .... do you agree?
@777markandrew
that wasn't the point i was making (or otto, from what i can tell)

pay attention to this part otto posted - which is cogent
You should know that there is no dependable way of knowing for sure when the bible was written
this is important because the hebrew or midrash claim is "the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation" [Vol. 11 Trumah Section 61]

the evidence demonstrates the Torah was written over time and as such is a collection with multiple authors, hence otto's claims above which you seemed to dismiss

that doesn't even address the plagiarized stories in the hebrew text either, BTW

the hebrew text is older, yes, but you can't state with any authority that it is more valid, relevant or in any way factual historical text, especially considering it's plagiarized text from other religions
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 15, 2017
It is clear that @777 doesn't ever address an argument except by indirection, and by claiming defects in opposing direct arguments without specifying them. This is rhetoric, not response. The intent is to try to confuse. These are the tactics of the dominionists. Note them well.
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2017
I agree that that the Hebrew scripture is younger than what we in the West believe. To have 3rd BC Greek translations IS evidence of its antiquity
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2017
777markandrew
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2017
For the record, I am not a believer in those text regardless of there antiquity
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) May 15, 2017
I agree that that the Hebrew scripture is younger than what we in the West believe... IS evidence of its antiquity
@777markandrew
what, exactly, is the point you're trying to make?
i think you're confused...

for the sake of clarity (again)
my point, restated: you posted
You comment on the age of the Septuagint (classic Koine Greek aka LXX) with a completely unrelated commentary on the Torah (Hebrew text)
this is, by definition, a false claim (see: http://www.auburn...ion.html )

reason:
the hebrew torah *is* relevant because it is the source of the OT translation (the septuagint)
as such, if you debunk or falsify the torah (or tanakh) then as it's the source of the septuagint, then it's subsequently debunking the septuagint

moreover, it's been proven that the torah plagiarized stories from other cultures/religions

.

.

i don't care if you believe or not as that is irrelevant

L8er 4 now
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 15, 2017
@777 you have been presented with multiple clear opportunities to address these matters directly and in detail, and have declined in every case.

This is probitive behavior.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) May 16, 2017
I can not make this anymore pain. I'm sorry if it goes over your head. THERE IS NO THE SAME AMOUNT OF PROOF FOR A GOD AS THERE IS FOR NO GOD ... THAT PROOF EQUALS ZERO!!!
-Remember when the mastertroll pussytard used to get all cappy like this?

Back to waste our time for no good reason eh? Lessee the first one was pirouette and then... aw I forget
LagomorphZero
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2017
Holy crap, @777markandrew stop feeding the trolls please and just report them.
777markandrew
not rated yet May 16, 2017
@Lagomorphzero

Agreed. Captain is a reasonable person so he deserves a reply. Sorry for my tardiness, it was a family weekend.
777markandrew
not rated yet May 16, 2017
Ghost refused to even accept Herod was a real person. My point about the LXX was just to show the Hebrew,which was written over many years, must he older than the 3rd century B.C. That, to me, is a good starting point to the age of the Hebrew text. That it must be older than the LXX
777markandrew
not rated yet May 16, 2017
Ghost confused the Greek text with the Hebrew text with his rely to me. My point was simply that, even though the age of the Hebrew text is younger than theist claim. It must be older than the 3rd century B.C. which was counter to his statements from what I understood of his relies.
777markandrew
not rated yet May 16, 2017
Sorry, I would clean up my grammar but I haven't figured out how to edit yet. I keep getting an error saying I cannot edit my posts. I am truly new to the commet section however I have been visiting this website for years now.
777markandrew
not rated yet May 16, 2017
I 100% agree that the Hebrew text is based on other cultures as Captain suggests. Most, like the flood epic have their roots in Babylonian and Egyptian culture.

I, personally, have no problem with that narrative.
777markandrew
not rated yet May 16, 2017
The "New Testiment" is a different beast all together!
777markandrew
not rated yet May 17, 2017
The book of Galactians spells out that Saul of Tarsus hijacked the early "Jesus Cult" movement and turned it into to Gentile religion we recognize today as "Christians".

But that is a completely different story of the original Hebrew text, translated into Greek, and the economic, geo political affairs of the the turn of the century that led to "Pauls" movement to take hold in the diaspora of the upstart and infinite Roman Empire.
777markandrew
May 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) May 17, 2017
Ghost refused to blah
Trying to have an intelligent conversation with a troll is like trying to wipe your ass with used toilet paper.
TheGhostofOtto1923
May 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.