English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

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

2007-11-15 10:38:49 · 32 answers · asked by Lonewolf 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

32 answers

Wow. I didn't know this. Read some of the article, very informative. I think its funny that non-creationists like to throw this at creationists as "proof" of the non-existence of God, yet their citing a discovery made by a scientist of the faith, lol!

Additionally, his discovery goes hand-in-hand with the Catechism. Logic and reason come from God the same as faith. Science is simply the method employed to help us understand and learn about how the world works, even though it leads us to the same ultimate source of all things: God.

2007-11-15 10:59:39 · answer #1 · answered by Danny H 6 · 2 2

No I didn't know.

The discrepancies with the Hubble constant and the red shift interpretation in "Big Bang" have always bothered me.

The theory always struck me as just biblical creation dressed up in a lab coat.

Now I understand why.

You really ought to check out some of the new versions of the revived "steady state" theory that have been coming out lately. They make a lot more sense than "Big Bang."

2007-11-15 10:53:43 · answer #2 · answered by Dont Call Me Dude 7 · 0 1

the theory we ought to continually stop debating and attempting to understand the international around us only because of the fact we cant clarify each and every thing might have left us as caveman. i'm specific there have been situations whilst human beings argued over what lightening exchange into, and according to threat there have been human beings such as you who stood up and reported "human beings, human beings why do you care what lightening is? we are going to never understand anyhow! do no longer even difficulty." the clarification we proceed to strengthen, hit upon and flow forward as a society and as a species is by our desire for desirous to understand. we've explored all international and into the tiniest cells that make up all residing issues. We got here across DNA, molecules, cells and how the climate paintings. we've explored some distance out into the reaches of area. for many religious human beings their god exists interior the gaps of human understanding. What exchange into the beginning up of existence? we are actually not one hundred%, so as that hollow is crammed with god. Their was lots extra gaps, (lightening, stars, rain, clouds, thunder, existence) that have been all crammed up. The god of the gaps is slowly disappearing with scientific theory and discovery. We cant anticipate to flow forward in something in the previous we seem for a naturalist clarification. How might our scientific technological understanding be right this moment if we nonetheless believed interior the classic Greek theory of the humors of the physique (that our thoughts and scientific issues have been controlled with the aid of the stability between blood, bile pleum and yet another substance i cant submit to in innovations.) how many human beings might additionally be alive right this moment to sit down down on yahoo solutions with out scientific technologies?

2016-10-16 21:31:28 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

yes, however as a matter of historical precedence friedman got there first. this is not to deny lemaitre's important contribution, or indeed the contributions of numerous other scientists over the decades. as far as the science goes the fact that lemaitre was a priest seems to be pretty much irrelevant. certainly there are few now who take seriously his 'cosmic egg' interpretation.

2007-11-15 10:53:15 · answer #4 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 0 0

Hey theist, did you know that I don't care?

If there's reason and evidence supporting it, it's reasonable to accept it as true or likely, or the best explanation we have.

Thus, whoever came up with the idea is irrelevant. They could have believed in dragons; that doesn't mean that dragons exist.

How is it that the truth of a claim is completely irrelevant to so many believers? They're always all about everything EXCEPT reason to believe -- like belief based on authority.

Why is that?

2007-11-15 11:06:16 · answer #5 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 2 1

I did not know that, thank you! My 2 cents: science doesn't say that nothing existed before the Big Bang. It just says that we don't know about that, and how to learn about it it currently inconceivable. Big Bang and belief in God can logically co-exist. Though personally I am a non-theist.

2007-11-15 10:46:13 · answer #6 · answered by unconcerned but not indifferent 3 · 1 0

Yes, actually, I did know that. Do you assume all atheists must believe the Big Bang to be the absolute truth?

2007-11-15 10:44:32 · answer #7 · answered by I, Sapient 7 · 0 0

Yep. And he also told the pope to shove it after the pope went around saying that the Big Bang was proof of God's creation.

2007-11-15 10:50:20 · answer #8 · answered by 雅威的烤面包机 6 · 0 1

Its just a shame Wiki is the worst website to get your resources off

2007-11-15 10:45:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yes sir I did. Smart man, Georges Lemaître.

2007-11-15 10:42:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers