COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

Pope Francis Agrees with Big Bang and Evolution

AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
There. Some 1.2B Catholics should now accept Evolution, the scientific theory that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors and that all living things evolved from one-celled organisms.

He also commits himself to Big Bang Theory and all its future developments. If eventually scientists theorize that the Universe is eternal, then the pope will not to be in a good position to extricate himself from that theory.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html
«1

Comments

  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Henceforth, all critiques to this papal position will have to deal with ElCid. Go for it, ElCid. Just inform me if you need back-up,
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Popes do a lot of things that contradict their religious doctrines. Another example is Pope Benedict's admittance that Christ was not born on December 25th:

    From CNN:


    Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions
    By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN
    Updated 10:56 AM ET, Fri November 23, 2012

    Pope sets out to de-bunk Christian myths 01:26
    Story highlights
    • Pope Benedict says the accepted date for Jesus' birth is several years off
    • His book says the Gospels do not support the presence of animals at Jesus' birth
    • He is releasing "Jesus of Nazareth -- The Infancy Narratives" in time for Christmas
    The book has an initial print run of more than a million copies, in several languages
    Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/

    (this is from Time Magazine):

    Pope Benedict Disputes Jesus’ Date of Birth

    With the release of his new book, Pope Benedict XVI asks how much we really know about the birth of Christ

    By Sorcha Pollak Nov. 22, 2012

    Pope Benedict XVI holds a copy of his book "Jesus' Childhood" as he meets RCS publisher Paolo Mieli and Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, in the Vatican on Nov. 20, 2012

    Pope Benedict XVI has revealed in the third installment of his trilogy, dedicated to the life of Christ, that Jesus may have been born earlier than previously thought. The calendar we use today, which commences with the birth of Christ and was created by a Dionysius Exiguus, a 6th century monk, may be mistaken. According to the Telegraph, the Pope explains in his book that Exiguus, who is considered the inventor of the Christian calendar, “made a mistake in his calculations by several years. The actual date of Jesus’ birth was several years before.” The suggestion that Jesus wasn’t actually born on Dec. 25 has been tirelessly debated by theologians, historians and spiritual leaders, but what makes this case different is that now the leader of the Catholic Church is the one asking the questions.

    Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives, was published on Tuesday. Like the previous two installments, it’s predicted to be a best seller, and a million copies of the book have already been printed. It is expected that the book will be translated into another 20 languages for publication in 72 countries. The Infancy Narratives follows the life of Jesus from conception to his presentation in the temple at the age of 12. The Pope describes this third book as a “small antechamber” to the trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth, reports the Vatican Press Office.

    (MORE: Holy Hashtags! The Pope Will Soon Join the Tweeting Masses)

    Pope Benedict makes some controversial statements in the book. He writes of how the Gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus was born when Herod the Great ruled in Judea. However, given that Herod died in 4 B.C., Jesus must have been born earlier than Exiguus originally documented. Arguments surrounding Jesus’ exact date of birth have confounded scholars for centuries. Even the Gospel of Luke contends that the birth took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria in A.D. 6.

    The author takes the opportunity not only to dispute the date of Jesus’ birth, but also to reaffirm the doctrine of the virgin birth as an “unequivocal” truth of faith. Reuters writes that Benedict reminds his readers that sexual intercourse did not play a part in the conception of Jesus. He states that a belief in the virgin birth of Christ is a “cornerstone of faith” and a sign of “God’s creative power.” “If God does not also have power over matter, then he simply is not God,” the Pope argues. “But he does have this power, and through the conception and resurrection of Jesus Christ he has ushered in a new creation.”

    Pope Benedict also examines the “question of interpreted history,” referring in particular to the attempts of the Gospels, like those of Matthew and Luke, to make sense of events after they had occurred, notes Reuters. “The aim of the evangelists was not to produce an exhaustive account,” the Pope explains, “but a record of what seemed important for the nascent faith community in the light of the word. The infancy narratives are interpreted history, condensed and written down in accordance with the interpretation.”

    There have been countless interpretations of the birth, life and death of Christ throughout history. One such interpreter is Bill Darlison, former Unitarian Church minister and current vice president of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches in the United Kingdom. Like others before him, he asks whether Christ was actually born on Dec. 25 or whether perhaps he was born “on one of about 150 other dates which have been proposed down through the centuries. Was he born in Nazareth or in Bethlehem and, if Bethlehem, was it Bethlehem in Judea or Bethlehem in Galilee?” He also argues that the spiritual birth “is always a virgin birth, because it is not related in any sense (except symbolically) to physical birth.” In 2004, TIME asked the same question, with David Van Biema wondering if “one might be tempted to abandon the whole Nativity story as ‘unhistoric,’ mere theological backing and filling.”

    The historical revisionism continues with the Pope raising the issue of the presence of animals at the birth of Christ. He reveals in Jesus of Nazareth that “there is no mention of animals in the Gospels.” This may come as a shock to the thousands of schools currently preparing their Nativity plays. But Pope Benedict reassures his readers not to worry — that “no one will give up the oxen and the donkey in their Nativity scenes,” notes the Telegraph. Even if animals did not feature at the birth, the Vatican seems happy to keep up the myth as it presents an elaborate life-size Nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square this Christmas.

    Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives is available in English and published by Image Books. It follows the first two books, which dealt with Christ’s adult life and death.

    This article has been amended. The original version referred to the conception of Jesus as “the Immaculate Conception.” The term refers to the life of Mary, mother of Jesus.

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/22/pope-benedict-disputes-jesus-date-of-birth/
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    What these just prove is that these Religious Leaders are not to be trusted by even their own followers! :lol: :rotflmao:
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Vatican At War With Nuns Over Thinking On Evolution
    Pope Francis's remarks have often sounded compatible with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's concept of 'conscious evolution.' So why are American nuns in trouble for supporting it?

    By Jason Berry | June 4, 2014

    READ MORE: http://www.mintpressnews.com/vatican-at-war-with-nuns-over-thinking-on-evolution/191913/
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    But atheists do not have doctrinal debate about the validity of Evolution. We are advanced.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Ateo wrote: »
    But atheists do not have doctrinal debate about the validity of Evolution. We are advanced.

    That's because you don't care about anything at all. If there were no theists who you oppose, would you impart anything as to benefit anyone at all? Seems to me that you rely on accidental turn of events just like your Big Bang theory :lol: :rotflmao:
  • ArchimedesArchimedes B?nned by ?dmin PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    What these just prove is that these Religious Leaders are not to be trusted by even their own followers! :lol: :rotflmao:


    Parang si Manyak Manalo, nakapang-rape na nga ng kaanib, tapos siya ba ang babayaran ng biktima, kapal talaga ng pagmumukha nito! :lol:
  • JagonJagon Don't listen to me PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    basa basa rin nang contents ng news pag may tym.

    obvious na obvious na ID parin itong si Francis.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Archimedes wrote: »
    Parang si Manyak Manalo, nakapang-rape na nga ng kaanib, tapos siya ba ang babayaran ng biktima, kapal talaga ng pagmumukha nito! :lol:

    Hindi lang pinabayaran ng korte, bumalik pa sya kasama ang asawa sa INC at nag-diakonesa pa! Bwahahaha! :lol: MALIWANAG NA PEKENG PAGBIBINTANG, ayon na rin sa affidavit na pinagawa nya!

    Eh ang mga popes mo, tuwing napapalitan, "Sorry!" Sorry daw pero paulit-ulit! Huy bulag, gumising ka na! :rotflmao:
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Ateo wrote: »
    There. Some 1.2B Catholics should now accept Evolution, the scientific theory that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors and that all living things evolved from one-celled organisms.

    He also commits himself to Big Bang Theory and all its future developments. If eventually scientists theorize that the Universe is eternal, then the pope will not to be in a good position to extricate himself from that theory.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

    WE do not commit ourselves to any scientific theory. The pope is not speaking about faith and morals. We are free to disagree with him on this issue. To my knowledge, the catholic may choose to believe in individual creation or a literal interpretation of Genesis or he may adhere to evolution as a plausible scientific theory like I do to explain natural phenomena.

    Gaya nga ng sinabi ni San Agustin noon pa mang ika apat na siglo:

    The purpose of the Bible is redemptive, said Augustine. God gave us the Bible to instruct us in the knowledge of salvation, not science. In his Literal Commentary Augustine asked what Scripture teaches about the shape or the form of the heavens, a topic that many ancient writers addressed. Are the heavens spherical or flat like a disc? Or, does it matter? He responded: "Many scholars engage in lengthy discussion on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them."

    Reference
  • KAGEMUSHAKAGEMUSHA Nobody! PExer
    What these just prove is that these Religious Leaders are not to be trusted by even their own followers! :lol: :rotflmao:

    parang INC leaders lang din,
    totoong hindi dapat pagkatiwalaan ng mga brainwashed members
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    KAGEMUSHA wrote: »
    parang INC leaders lang din,
    totoong hindi dapat pagkatiwalaan ng mga brainwashed members

    I guess yan ang nga ang impression mo/nyo kasi yan ng gustong palabasin ng tiwalagers. Hindi ko kayo masisisi. Kaya ang mga yan ay stumbling block at malaki ang pagkakasala.

    New Heart English Bible
    Woe to you Law scholars. For you took away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in, you hindered."

    MIND YOU, ang problema sa INC ay hindi doctrinal kundi domestic dispute. Pinalalaki ito ng kampo ni Angel at Lolita Manalo upang i-involve ang church pero ayon na rin sa findings ng Philippine Red Cross na pinamumunuan ni Sen. Richard Gordon, ito ay hindi qualified to be aided by CHR at ng Red Cross. bumagsak na ito sa CHR kaya sila pumunta sa Red Cross pero bagsak pa rin. :lol: :rotflmao:

    NAGTATAKA BA KAYO? Paano ay yan talaga ang katotohanan, nagsisinungaling silang mga "biktima" kuno!
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Popes do a lot of things that contradict their religious doctrines. Another example is Pope Benedict's admittance that Christ was not born on December 25th:

    From CNN:


    Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions
    By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN
    Updated 10:56 AM ET, Fri November 23, 2012

    Pope sets out to de-bunk Christian myths 01:26
    Story highlights
    • Pope Benedict says the accepted date for Jesus' birth is several years off
    • His book says the Gospels do not support the presence of animals at Jesus' birth
    • He is releasing "Jesus of Nazareth -- The Infancy Narratives" in time for Christmas
    The book has an initial print run of more than a million copies, in several languages
    Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/

    (this is from Time Magazine):

    Pope Benedict Disputes Jesus’ Date of Birth

    With the release of his new book, Pope Benedict XVI asks how much we really know about the birth of Christ

    By Sorcha Pollak Nov. 22, 2012

    Pope Benedict XVI holds a copy of his book "Jesus' Childhood" as he meets RCS publisher Paolo Mieli and Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, in the Vatican on Nov. 20, 2012

    Pope Benedict XVI has revealed in the third installment of his trilogy, dedicated to the life of Christ, that Jesus may have been born earlier than previously thought. The calendar we use today, which commences with the birth of Christ and was created by a Dionysius Exiguus, a 6th century monk, may be mistaken. According to the Telegraph, the Pope explains in his book that Exiguus, who is considered the inventor of the Christian calendar, “made a mistake in his calculations by several years. The actual date of Jesus’ birth was several years before.” The suggestion that Jesus wasn’t actually born on Dec. 25 has been tirelessly debated by theologians, historians and spiritual leaders, but what makes this case different is that now the leader of the Catholic Church is the one asking the questions.

    Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives, was published on Tuesday. Like the previous two installments, it’s predicted to be a best seller, and a million copies of the book have already been printed. It is expected that the book will be translated into another 20 languages for publication in 72 countries. The Infancy Narratives follows the life of Jesus from conception to his presentation in the temple at the age of 12. The Pope describes this third book as a “small antechamber” to the trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth, reports the Vatican Press Office.

    (MORE: Holy Hashtags! The Pope Will Soon Join the Tweeting Masses)

    Pope Benedict makes some controversial statements in the book. He writes of how the Gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus was born when Herod the Great ruled in Judea. However, given that Herod died in 4 B.C., Jesus must have been born earlier than Exiguus originally documented. Arguments surrounding Jesus’ exact date of birth have confounded scholars for centuries. Even the Gospel of Luke contends that the birth took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria in A.D. 6.

    The author takes the opportunity not only to dispute the date of Jesus’ birth, but also to reaffirm the doctrine of the virgin birth as an “unequivocal” truth of faith. Reuters writes that Benedict reminds his readers that sexual intercourse did not play a part in the conception of Jesus. He states that a belief in the virgin birth of Christ is a “cornerstone of faith” and a sign of “God’s creative power.” “If God does not also have power over matter, then he simply is not God,” the Pope argues. “But he does have this power, and through the conception and resurrection of Jesus Christ he has ushered in a new creation.”

    Pope Benedict also examines the “question of interpreted history,” referring in particular to the attempts of the Gospels, like those of Matthew and Luke, to make sense of events after they had occurred, notes Reuters. “The aim of the evangelists was not to produce an exhaustive account,” the Pope explains, “but a record of what seemed important for the nascent faith community in the light of the word. The infancy narratives are interpreted history, condensed and written down in accordance with the interpretation.”

    There have been countless interpretations of the birth, life and death of Christ throughout history. One such interpreter is Bill Darlison, former Unitarian Church minister and current vice president of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches in the United Kingdom. Like others before him, he asks whether Christ was actually born on Dec. 25 or whether perhaps he was born “on one of about 150 other dates which have been proposed down through the centuries. Was he born in Nazareth or in Bethlehem and, if Bethlehem, was it Bethlehem in Judea or Bethlehem in Galilee?” He also argues that the spiritual birth “is always a virgin birth, because it is not related in any sense (except symbolically) to physical birth.” In 2004, TIME asked the same question, with David Van Biema wondering if “one might be tempted to abandon the whole Nativity story as ‘unhistoric,’ mere theological backing and filling.”

    The historical revisionism continues with the Pope raising the issue of the presence of animals at the birth of Christ. He reveals in Jesus of Nazareth that “there is no mention of animals in the Gospels.” This may come as a shock to the thousands of schools currently preparing their Nativity plays. But Pope Benedict reassures his readers not to worry — that “no one will give up the oxen and the donkey in their Nativity scenes,” notes the Telegraph. Even if animals did not feature at the birth, the Vatican seems happy to keep up the myth as it presents an elaborate life-size Nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square this Christmas.

    Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives is available in English and published by Image Books. It follows the first two books, which dealt with Christ’s adult life and death.

    This article has been amended. The original version referred to the conception of Jesus as “the Immaculate Conception.” The term refers to the life of Mary, mother of Jesus.

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/22/pope-benedict-disputes-jesus-date-of-birth/

    Camote talaga :P. Ano namang doctrina yung kinocontra ni Benedict? Pakilagay nga ang paragraph sa Catechism? On the other hand, he affirms catholic doctrine with his writings mokong na to. Eto sinipi doon sa cut and paste mo na din mo naman binabasa baliw nagmagaling ka na naman :rotflmao::

    The author takes the opportunity not only to dispute the date of Jesus’ birth, but also to reaffirm the doctrine of the virgin birth as an “unequivocal” truth of faith. Reuters writes that Benedict reminds his readers that sexual intercourse did not play a part in the conception of Jesus. He states that a belief in the virgin birth of Christ is a “cornerstone of faith” and a sign of “God’s creative power.” “If God does not also have power over matter, then he simply is not God,” the Pope argues. “But he does have this power, and through the conception and resurrection of Jesus Christ he has ushered in a new creation.”
  • gotta lick itgotta lick it Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Ateo wrote: »
    There. Some 1.2B Catholics should now accept Evolution, the scientific theory that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors and that all living things evolved from one-celled organisms.

    He also commits himself to Big Bang Theory and all its future developments. If eventually scientists theorize that the Universe is eternal, then the pope will not to be in a good position to extricate himself from that theory.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

    hay naku .......

    Genesis 1:3

    And, God said, Let there be light; B.A.N.G!!!!
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    ElCid wrote: »
    Camote talaga :P. Ano namang doctrina yung kinocontra ni Benedict? Pakilagay nga ang paragraph sa Catechism? On the other hand, he affirms catholic doctrine with his writings mokong na to. Eto sinipi doon sa cut and paste mo na din mo naman binabasa baliw nagmagaling ka na naman :rotflmao::

    The author takes the opportunity not only to dispute the date of Jesus’ birth, but also to reaffirm the doctrine of the virgin birth as an “unequivocal” truth of faith. Reuters writes that Benedict reminds his readers that sexual intercourse did not play a part in the conception of Jesus. He states that a belief in the virgin birth of Christ is a “cornerstone of faith” and a sign of “God’s creative power.” “If God does not also have power over matter, then he simply is not God,” the Pope argues. “But he does have this power, and through the conception and resurrection of Jesus Christ he has ushered in a new creation.”

    Hindi yan ang point ko. Itinuro sa inyo ng mga kaparian nyo na ipinanganak si Cristo noong December 25th tapos ngayon ay sasabihin ng Papa nyo na hindi. Siguro tinanggap na rin ang katotohanan dahil hindi naman nila maipipilit yan. Yes, doktrina nyo yan, ipinagdiriwang nyo ang panganganak kay Cristo tuwing December 25th kasabay isineselebreyt nyo si St. Nick nyo, si Santa Claus, na inalis na yata sa pagka-Santo diba? Masyado kasing maraming imbentong turo sa inyo eh, :lol: :rotflmao:
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Tama naman si Kidlat. It was the RCC that recycled Saturnalia into Christmas and asserted that it was so because Christ was born on that day. Then Benedict simply dumped that centuries-old myth. He was Pope Scrooge who killed Christmas.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    hay naku .......

    Genesis 1:3

    And, God said, Let there be light; B.A.N.G!!!!

    Ang sinasabing Big Bang ng mga scientists:

    The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
    http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

    Hindi lang yung "BANG" but sinasabi ng scientists na WALANG LUMIKHA, kundi SLOW PROCESS yan na accidentally ay nag-form into something magnificent.

    Kaya nga "BANG" ay sumabog at kumalat at kung ano man ang naging resulta, chamba!

    Yan ang pakahulugan ng mga scientists. Ngayon para ikapit ng Pope ang BIG BANG sa CREATION ay para kang nagdidikit ng magnet sa opposite poles, HINDI MANGYAYARI yan, hindi sila magkakadikit! Pramiss!!!
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Ang sinasabing Big Bang ng mga scientists:

    The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
    http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

    Hindi lang yung "BANG" but sinasabi ng scientists na WALANG LUMIKHA, kundi SLOW PROCESS yan na accidentally ay nag-form into something magnificent.

    Kaya nga "BANG" ay sumabog at kumalat at kung ano man ang naging resulta, chamba!

    Yan ang pakahulugan ng mga scientists. Ngayon para ikapit ng Pope ang BIG BANG sa CREATION ay para kang nagdidikit ng magnet sa opposite poles, HINDI MANGYAYARI yan, hindi sila magkakadikit! Pramiss!!!

    Nakialam na naman sa mga bagay na hindi niya alam. :rotflmao: Ang sciencia by its nature does not deal with metaphysical concepts like God and immortality. Walang ganun sa sciencia. It primarily deals with observable phenomena and experimentation. Kaya di obligado mga scientifico na ipaliwanag ang mga bagay-bagay by saying 'God did it" :rotflmao:. If they did that walang sciencia b0b :naughty:. Di tulad ng mga ministro niyo, maraming kaparian ang scientifico. Itong Big Bang actually theory ng isang paring CATOLICO:

    Georges Henri Joseph ?douard Lema?tre (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 ? 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lema?tre also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[8]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    ElCid wrote: »
    Nakialam na naman sa mga bagay na hindi niya alam. :rotflmao: Ang sciencia by its nature does not deal with metaphysical concepts like God and immortality. Walang ganun sa sciencia. It primarily deals with observable phenomena and experimentation. Kaya di obligado mga scientifico na ipaliwanag ang mga bagay-bagay by saying 'God did it" :rotflmao:. If they did that walang sciencia b0b :naughty:. Di tulad ng mga ministro niyo, maraming kaparian ang scientifico. Itong Big Bang actually theory ng isang paring CATOLICO:

    Georges Henri Joseph ?douard Lema?tre (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 ? 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lema?tre also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[8]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

    Alam ko yan :D Hindi ko na nga sinabi at baka sabihin nyo ay pinagbibintangan ko na naman ang RCC. Ang mga ministro ng INC noong una ay hindi mataas ang pinag-aralan pero naniniwala kaming sila'y isinugo at may karapatang mangaral matapos aralan ng Huling Sugo sa mga Huling Araw na dili iba't si FYM :D

    Ngayon, ang mga ministro namin ay mataas na ang pinag-aralan at nag-i-specialize pa sa iba't ibang field upang maging mas lalong epektibo sa pagtupad sa kanilang mga tungkulin. Marami sa mga ministro lalo na ang kabataan ay multi-linguist at handang magturo sa iba't ibang parte ng daigdig.

    Kung totoo yang sinabi mo:
    El Cid wrote:
    Ang sciencia by its nature does not deal with metaphysical concepts like God and immortality. Walang ganun sa sciencia. It primarily deals with observable phenomena and experimentation. Kaya di obligado mga scientifico na ipaliwanag ang mga bagay-bagay by saying 'God did it"

    Yan bang Pari na si Georges Henri Joseph ?douard Lema?tre ay scientist o hindi? AMININ! Sa mga sinasabi na lang niya ay kinokontra na nya ang biblia, what's his point? Bakit hindi nya i-relate sa siyensiya ang katotohanang nasusulat sa biblia? Ang bible ay scientific book at ang mga nadidikubre pa lang ngayon ay matagal nang nakatala dito!

    May bagong scientifical proof na ang universe ay nag-expand spontaneously at hindi slow process na umabot ng billions of years! Proof na may uber-powerful Designer and Creator na hindi na kinailangang i-process ito ng matagal!

    A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
    Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a mathematical proof


    One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. This is not just an idea but a scientific theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence.
    For a start, there is the cosmic microwave background, which is a kind of echo of the big bang; then there is the ongoing expansion of the cosmos, which when imagined backwards, hints at a Big Bang-type origin; and the abundance of the primordial elements, such as helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and so on, can all be calculated using the theory.

    But that still leaves a huge puzzle. What caused the Big Bang itself? For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

    That?s plausible, given what we know about quantum mechanics. But physicists really need more ? a mathematical proof to give the idea flesh.

    Today they get their wish thanks to the work of Dongshan He and buddies at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China. These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.

    The new proof is based on a special set of solutions to a mathematical entity known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. In the first half of the 20th century, cosmologists struggled to combine the two pillars of modern physics? quantum mechanics and general relativity?in a way that reasonably described the universe. As far as they could tell, these theories were entirely at odds with each other.
    The breakthrough came in the 1960s when the physicists John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt combined these previously incompatible ideas in a mathematical framework now known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The new work of Dongshan and co explores some new solutions to this equation.
    At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg?s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.

    When this happens, there are two possibilities. If this bubble of space does not expand rapidly, it disappears again almost instantly. But if the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible.

    The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? ?We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially,? say Dongshan and co.
    Their approach is to consider a spherical bubble that is entirely described by its radius. They then derive the equation that describes the rate at which this radius can expand. They then consider three scenarios for the geometry of the bubble ? whether closed, open or flat.

    In each of these cases, they find a solution in which the bubble can expand exponentially and thereby reach a size in which a universe can form?a Big Bang.

    That?s a result that cosmologists should be able to build on. It also has an interesting corollary.
    One important factor in today?s models of the universe is called the cosmological constant. This is a term that describes the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Einstein in his 1917 general theory of relativity and later abandoned by him after Hubble?s discovery that the universe was expanding.

    Until the 1990s, most cosmologists assumed that the cosmological constant was zero. But more recently, cosmologists have found evidence that something is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, implying that the cosmological constant cannot be zero. So any new theory of the universe must allow for a non-zero value of the cosmological constant.

    What plays the role of the cosmological constant in Dongshan and co?s new theory? Interestingly, these guys say a quantity known as the quantum potential plays the role of cosmological constant in the new solutions.

    This potential comes from an idea called pilot-wave theory developed in the mid-20th century by the physicist David Bohm. This theory reproduces all of the conventional predictions of quantum mechanics but at the price of accepting an additional term known as the quantum potential.
    The theory has the effect of making quantum mechanics entirely deterministic since the quantum potential can be used to work out things like the actual position of the particle.

    However, mainstream physicists have never taken to Bohm?s idea because its predictions are identical to the conventional version of the theory so there is no experimental way of telling them apart. However, it forces physicists to accept a probabilistic explanation for the nature of reality, something they are generally happy to accept.

    The fact that the quantum potential is a necessary part of this new mathematical derivation of the origin of the universe is fascinating. Perhaps it?s time to give Bohm?s ideas another spin round the block.

    Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 : Spontaneous Creation Of The Universe From Nothing
    Follow the Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter at @arxivblog, on Facebook and by hitting the Follow button below.

    Go to the profile of The Physics arXiv Blog
    The Physics arXiv Blog
    An alternative view of the best new ideas in science. About: http://tinyurl.com/p6ypk56
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Alam ko yan :D Hindi ko na nga sinabi at baka sabihin nyo ay pinagbibintangan ko na naman ang RCC. Ang mga ministro ng INC noong una ay hindi mataas ang pinag-aralan pero naniniwala kaming sila'y isinugo at may karapatang mangaral matapos aralan ng Huling Sugo sa mga Huling Araw na dili iba't si FYM :D

    You don't get the point. Hindi yung LUMIKHA ang pinag-aaralan ng sciencia kungdi OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA. Kaya sablay ang pamumuntos mo sa mga scientifico. In other words irrelevant bunga lang ng kapos na kaalaman mo kung saan ang boundaries ng mga bagay bagay. Hindi sakop ng sciencia ang metaphysics.
    Kung totoo yang sinabi mo: Yan bang Pari na si Georges Henri Joseph ?douard Lema?tre ay scientist o hindi? AMININ! Sa mga sinasabi na lang niya ay kinokontra na nya ang biblia, what's his point? Bakit hindi nya i-relate sa siyensiya ang katotohanang nasusulat sa biblia? Ang bible ay scientific book at ang mga nadidikubre pa lang ngayon ay matagal nang nakatala dito!

    Kab0b0han na naman. Tapos magtatanong what's his point? Scientist nga eh :rotflmao:. Di mo kayang tutulan ang bagay na di mo naman naiintindihan. As a scientist hindi siya obligado ipaliwanag ang relasyon ng sciencia at relihiyon. At kaestup!duhan sabihin na ang biblia scientific book unless you believe in a literal 6 day creation. Tumutok ka ulit para mailampaso kita ulit :P.
    May bagong scientifical proof na ang universe ay nag-expand spontaneously at hindi slow process na umabot ng billions of years! Proof na may uber-powerful Designer and Creator na hindi na kinailangang i-process ito ng matagal!

    A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
    Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a mathematical proof


    One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. This is not just an idea but a scientific theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence.
    For a start, there is the cosmic microwave background, which is a kind of echo of the big bang; then there is the ongoing expansion of the cosmos, which when imagined backwards, hints at a Big Bang-type origin; and the abundance of the primordial elements, such as helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and so on, can all be calculated using the theory.

    But that still leaves a huge puzzle. What caused the Big Bang itself? For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

    That?s plausible, given what we know about quantum mechanics. But physicists really need more ? a mathematical proof to give the idea flesh.

    Today they get their wish thanks to the work of Dongshan He and buddies at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China. These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.

    The new proof is based on a special set of solutions to a mathematical entity known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. In the first half of the 20th century, cosmologists struggled to combine the two pillars of modern physics? quantum mechanics and general relativity?in a way that reasonably described the universe. As far as they could tell, these theories were entirely at odds with each other.

    The breakthrough came in the 1960s when the physicists John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt combined these previously incompatible ideas in a mathematical framework now known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The new work of Dongshan and co explores some new solutions to this equation.
    At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg?s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.

    When this happens, there are two possibilities. If this bubble of space does not expand rapidly, it disappears again almost instantly. But if the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible.

    The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? ?We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially,? say Dongshan and co.
    Their approach is to consider a spherical bubble that is entirely described by its radius. They then derive the equation that describes the rate at which this radius can expand. They then consider three scenarios for the geometry of the bubble ? whether closed, open or flat.

    In each of these cases, they find a solution in which the bubble can expand exponentially and thereby reach a size in which a universe can form?a Big Bang.

    That?s a result that cosmologists should be able to build on. It also has an interesting corollary.
    One important factor in today?s models of the universe is called the cosmological constant. This is a term that describes the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Einstein in his 1917 general theory of relativity and later abandoned by him after Hubble?s discovery that the universe was expanding.

    Until the 1990s, most cosmologists assumed that the cosmological constant was zero. But more recently, cosmologists have found evidence that something is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, implying that the cosmological constant cannot be zero. So any new theory of the universe must allow for a non-zero value of the cosmological constant.

    What plays the role of the cosmological constant in Dongshan and co?s new theory? Interestingly, these guys say a quantity known as the quantum potential plays the role of cosmological constant in the new solutions.

    This potential comes from an idea called pilot-wave theory developed in the mid-20th century by the physicist David Bohm. This theory reproduces all of the conventional predictions of quantum mechanics but at the price of accepting an additional term known as the quantum potential.
    The theory has the effect of making quantum mechanics entirely deterministic since the quantum potential can be used to work out things like the actual position of the particle.

    However, mainstream physicists have never taken to Bohm?s idea because its predictions are identical to the conventional version of the theory so there is no experimental way of telling them apart. However, it forces physicists to accept a probabilistic explanation for the nature of reality, something they are generally happy to accept.

    The fact that the quantum potential is a necessary part of this new mathematical derivation of the origin of the universe is fascinating. Perhaps it?s time to give Bohm?s ideas another spin round the block.

    Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 : Spontaneous Creation Of The Universe From Nothing
    Follow the Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter at @arxivblog, on Facebook and by hitting the Follow button below.

    Go to the profile of The Physics arXiv Blog
    The Physics arXiv Blog
    An alternative view of the best new ideas in science. About: http://tinyurl.com/p6ypk56

    Isang malaking pagkakamali on your part to base your faith on sciencie. Scientific discoveries are provisional in nature. Unlike religion, hindi yan dogmatic and what may be true today may no longer hold true tomorrow. Kahit ang laws of gravity may not hold true for the entire universe and for all time. Anyway tama na yan. Mahirap kase ipaliwanag ko pa ng mahaba eh di mo naman naiintindihan at maghanap ka lang ng word association and then maghanap ng copy paste. LOL.

    Use your brain and eat more protein. OK ang talbos ng camote pero dapat kumain ka din ng isda para may protina ka sa utak :P

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file