how much longer...?

Question

how much longer do you think it will be before the churches start accepting evolution and change their theories on the bible to say that god made it possible? i'm sure there's probably even a few verses in the bible that are written vaguely enough to assume that god created single-celled organisms that evolved into man? so how much longer? 10, 20 years? what do you think?

so for those saying never, would you go to a different church if yours started siding with theories of evolution? or would you start to question your faith? keep in mind, it used to be considered heresy to believe that anything but the earth was the center of the universe...

preacher, the big bang theory is not so much a theory of how the universe started but the universe as we know it today. it is a fact that the universe is expanding outward in all directions. scientist realize this by measuring the time it takes for light to travel to earth in all directions. since we know this, it reasonable to assume that the universe was at one time smaller. and if you go back long enough, you get to the point where all the mass in the universe was in a ball. with as much mass as there was in this ball, the gravitational force towards the center. as the object became more dense, the radius decreased and thus the gravitational force increased. this is simple physics. however, there comes a point when the energy within this ball becomes greater than the forces holding it together. think of it like a stick of dynamite. now as far as this being the beginning of the universe, i can't say.(cont'd.)

i'd say the universe has always been present, and this is a regular cycle which occurs every so often. there are these things called black holes which have extremely high gravitational forces associated with the. so great that they can even bend light. my guess is, yes a guess, not a theory, that these objects will eventually cause the universe to implode on itself once again and spur another big bang?

Answer 1

Well I believe the Vatican does accept evolution. Surprising isn't it.

Answer 2

I think many people misunderstand the Christian view on Evolution. Unfortunately it is very difficult to speak on behalf of an entire faith, but I'll try, and other Christian's feel free to question it.

Few Christians would question evolution as a scientific principle that perhaps explains why certain species have changed characteristics over many many years. However, I think most Christians would at least question the fact that all species, including humans, have been created purely by the acts of chance according to the principles of Darwin.

The interesting thing is that one of these people who questioned it was Darwin himself. Towards to end of his scientific career, Darwin published saying that although he had written of an important scientific theory, he found it hard to believe that this would be the single process involved in the creation of the human race.

To further answer your question, of course God made it possible, but that isn't to say that He used it as the sole method of creation because that would mean he left a lot of the work up to chance. Also, I am not aware of any such bible verses but would be interested to read them if anyone could find them.

It is unfortunate that previous generations of Christians have rejected science, but what i think is important to understand is that Christians now should not be rejecting science but will still say that what has been discovered is not the entire answer.

Answer 3

How much longer will scientists insist that the "big bang" was an accident, that the creation of life was an accident, and that "evolution" was an accident? There is no evidence to support their claim. They have accepted it on faith and refuse to even consider any other possible explanation. At that point, science ceases to be science.

Years ago the scholars were criticizing Christians for saying that the universe had a beginning. They simply believed that everything has always existed. The scholars changed their minds and the Bible is the same. Now scholars are saying that the universe had a beginning (the "big bang") but insist that it must be an accident. It is obvious that everything was designed by an intelligence. Perhaps one day scientists will get a clue.
-----------------------------------
To answer your updated question-
There are different ideas about the "big bang". Some scientists theorize the cycle you mention. Others theorize it was a beginning with nothing existing before. In both cases, you would have to say that it is (1) much different than previous theories and (2) much more similar to the Bible's account.

In fact, it seems to be the same as the Bible account. GOD said, "Let there be light, and there was light." That sounds like a gigantic release of energy to me.

Science has changed. The Bible remains the same.

----------------------------------

The Fundamental Question
From time immemorial men have turned their gaze toward the heavens and wondered. Both cosmology and philosophy trace their roots to the wonder felt by the ancient Greeks as they contemplated the cosmos. According to Aristotle,

it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and the stars, and about the origin of the universe.{1}
The question of why the universe exists remains the ultimate mystery. Derek Parfit, a contemporary philosopher, declares that "No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing."{2}

This question led the great German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to posit the existence of a metaphysically necessary being which carries within itself the sufficient reason for its own existence and which constitutes the sufficient reason for the existence of everything else in the world.{3} Leibniz identified this being as God. Leibniz's critics, on the other hand, claimed that the space-time universe may itself be the necessary being demanded by Leibniz's argument. Thus, the Scottish sceptic David Hume queried, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being . . . ?" Indeed, "How can anything, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and a beginning of existence?"{4} There is no warrant for going beyond the universe to posit a supernatural ground of its existence. As Bertrand Russell put it so succinctly in his BBC radio debate with Frederick Copleston, "The universe is just there, and that's all."{5}

The Origin of the Universe
This stand-off persisted unaltered until 1917, the year in which Albert Einstein made a cosmological application of his newly discovered General Theory of Relativity.{6} To his chagrin, he found that GTR would not permit a static model of the universe unless he introduced into his gravitational field equations a certain "fudge factor" L in order to counterbalance the gravitational effect of matter. Einstein's universe was balanced on a razor's edge, however, and the least perturbation would cause the universe either to implode or to expand. By taking this feature of Einstein's model seriously, Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre were able to formulate independently in the 1920s solutions to the field equations which predicted an expanding universe.{7}

The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe "was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable."{8} But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos. In 1929 Edwin Hubble's measurements of the red-shift in the optical spectra of light from distant galaxies,{9} which was taken to indicate a universal recessional motion of the light sources in the line of sight, provided a dramatic verification of the Friedman-Lemaitre model. Incredibly, what Hubble had discovered was the isotropic expansion of the universe predicted by Friedman and Lemaitre. It marked a veritable turning point in the history of science. "Of all the great predictions that science has ever made over the centuries," exclaims John Wheeler, "was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?"{10}

The Standard Big Bang Model
As a GTR-based theory, the Friedman-Lemaitre model does not describe the expansion of the material content of the universe into a pre-existing, empty, Newtonian space, but rather the expansion of space itself. This has the astonishing implication that as one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, space-time curvature becomes progressively greater until one finally arrives at a singular state at which space-time curvature becomes infinite. This state therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself. P. C. W. Davies comments,

An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.{11}
The popular expression "Big Bang," originally a derisive term coined by Fred Hoyle to characterize the beginning of the universe predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model, is thus potentially misleading, since the expansion cannot be visualized from the outside (there being no "outside," just as there is no "before" with respect to the Big Bang).{12}

Answer 4

It has already happened. Apologies for the long answer.

The Australian newspaper

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.


The Vatican also supports the teaching of Evolution in science and creationism as a separate subject.

Answer 5

How much longer? According to alot of catholics, their "church" already does. And no, there are no verses "vaguely written" to suggest any such idea. As for the time when people thought the earth was at the center of the universe, it doesn't surprise me considering they didn't have technology to see otherwise. But I'll bet that's just the answer you so desire, eh?

Answer 6

Never change. No way friend.We have intelligent mind not like the monkey or ape. My mother has never been touched by an ape, so I did not came from the ape.

Just think of it, if you evolved from the ape, where did the ape evolve or came from and if you say the ape came f rom the snake, where did the snake came from, and so forth and so on?

If you believe that you came from the apes it is as if you are believing that your ancestors have relationship with the apes before you existed as man. Someday, the still living apes will complain to you that why you did not turn them to humans so that they will know also what you know.
jtm

Answer 7

I never seen that Bible saying that God created single-celled organisms. It said he created the heavens and the earth. Thats the FIRST verse! Then the Bible says that he created Adam in his image. A human being! Thats what Adam was. Not a single-celled organism.

He blew into his nostrils and he became a living soul.

Answer 8

When evidence becomes overwhelming, things will change. Only the very primitive believe the world is flat or that the earth is the center of the universe.
It will be safe to believe in natural selection when religious leaders understand that their collection plates will still remain full regardless of natural selection. The scientific question will be, why is it that nature selected the religious to breed.)

Answer 9

Every time science comes up with some grand theory, the Christian church rejects it at first, but later uses it to prove "the majesty" of our supposed creator.
Maybe 25, 50 years from now.

Answer 10

To accept "evolution" would be to reject Gods word.