[GodAndCountryFirst]

A friend sent me this nonsense.

You know what? If scientists want to use their own money to try to find evidence for the discredited "big bang" nonsense, that's fine. But the South Pole Telescope was funded with our tax dollars!

Funny how you can't use tax money to fund creation science - somebody might be offended - but there seems to be unlimited money to chase unproven non-Biblical theories. I guess it's alright to use tax money if it offends Christians!

I KNOW the origin of the universe! God, who designed and built the universe, told us how he did it. I don't need money used to try to disprove God's Word! What a huge waste of money.

[MeshugeMikey]

Pie Ala Mode.... YES

B Modes...No!

[Mike Darancette]

Remember God also gave us minds and curiosity.

[sauron]

I KNOW the origin of the universe! God, who designed and built the universe, told us how he did it. I don't need money used to try to disprove God's Word! What a huge waste of money.

I'm a Christian.

I disagree with you. Completely. We're investigating the Clockmaker, taking apart the clock, examining it, and in the process, we will only confirm that He exists. It's a great use of the money.

We should spend more.

The sciences: Chemistry, biology, physics--are only confirming that this is an ordered universe.

Why the fear? Relax. It's all gonna work out to be fine. It was always planned to. ;)

[chessplayer]

Another commie plot by commie scientists? Oh, nooo!!!

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

It was playful for God to create a Universe 10,000 years ago with abundant evidence of being more than 10 billion years old.

[null and void]

I smell fear.

[DBrow]

“I KNOW the origin of the universe! God, who designed and built the universe, told us how he did it.”

I agree, but He did not explain why the early light was polarized in different ways, we have to learn that ourselves. I expect it will lead to a greater understanding of His universe.

He also did not tell us that bacteria cause diseases, and that antibiotics can help with that. He gave us the tools to learn about that, and probably guided the scientists who did discover that..

[MeanGreen2008]

"...to try to find evidence for the discredited "big bang" nonsense"

Seriously? Every glance into the universe does nothing but confirm the Big Bang.

[rickmichaels]

I KNOW the origin of the universe! God, who designed and built the universe, told us how he did it.

When did he do that? Who designed and built him? It seems you should know these things.

[woofie]

Yes scientists are wasting their time on these silly things like the origins of the universe

They should study really important stuff like this:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/01/04/study-dogs-relieve-themselves-in-line-with-earths-magnetic-field/

[jayrunner]

Those swirls may be when God zapped mankind for not obeying his commands.

[Sherman Logan]

You know what? If scientists want to use their own money to try to find evidence for the discredited "big bang" nonsense, that's fine.

Uhh, dude. You seem to be as confused about BBT as many evolutionists are.

BBT is essentially a restating of Genesis 1:1. Suddenly, the Universe and Time came into existence from nothing.

BBT says nothing at all about what caused the Universe to come into being. It is entirely compatible with the Bible's account.

[Vaquero]

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Catholic Online) -- Intelligent Design reduces and belittles God’s power and might, according to the director of the Vatican Observatory. Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.” Father Coyne is scheduled to deliver the annual Aquinas Lecture on “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution” at Palm Beach Atlantic University, an interdenominational Christian university of about 3,100 students, here Jan. 31. The talk is sponsored by the Newman Club, and scheduled in conjunction with the Jan. 28 feast of St. Thomas Aquinas. Catholic Online received an advance copy of the remarks from the Jesuit priest-astronomer, who heads the Vatican Observatory, which has sites at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, and on Mount Graham in Arizona. Christianity is “radically creationist,” Father George V. Coyne said, but it is not best described by the “crude creationism” of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it. In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes that Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” is “a fundamental church teaching” which advances the evolutionary debate. He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.” And while Charles Darwin receives most of the attention in the debate over evolution, Father Coyne said it was the 18th-century French naturalist Georges Buffon, condemned a hundred years before Darwin for suggesting that “it took billions of years to form the crust of the earth,” who “caused problems for the theologians with the implications that might be drawn from the theory of evolution.” He points to the “marvelous intuition” of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who said in 1868, “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.” Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.” He criticizes Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna for instigating a “tragic” episode “in the relationship of the Catholic Church to science” through the prelate’s July 7, 2005, article he wrote for the New York Times that “neo-Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine,” while the Intelligent Design theory is. Cardinal Schonborn “is in error,” the Vatican observatory director says, on “at least five fundamental issues.” “One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as ‘rather vague and unimportant,’ is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’ four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’” Father Coyne says. Christianity is “radically creationist” and God is the “creator of the universe,” he says, but in “a totally different sense” than creationism has come to mean. “It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis,” he stresses. “It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.” He says that God is not needed to explain the “scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief.” “To need God would be a very denial of God. God is not a response to a need,” the Jesuit says, adding that some religious believers act as if they “fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God.” Yet, he adds, this is the opposite of what human intelligence should be working toward. “We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation.” Modern science reveals to the religious believer “God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God,” Father Coyne says, adding that this view of creation is not new but can be found in early Christian writings, including from those of St. Augustine. “Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.” He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.” He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.” “God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.” The concludes his prepared remarks noting that science challenges believers’ traditional understanding of God and the universe to look beyond “crude creationism” to a view that preserves the special character of both. - - - Copyright © 2006 by Catholic Online (www.catholic.org). All Rights Reserved.

[Sawdring]

We need to quit science and just study the Bible. All the answers are in the Bible.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Something created the Universe. Who’s to say God didn’t use a big bang to do it?

[exDemMom]

God gave many human beings an insatiable curiosity about the nature of His creation. How those of us who are so inclined choose to study that creation is a matter of personal choice. I happen to be a life scientist—meaning that the theory of evolution informs all of my research.

There is no need to feel threatened by those of us who are inspired to study and understand God’s work.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

the discredited "big bang" nonsense

Really? Tell me...how long was the first day? The second day? Earth was created on the third day. So was the second day 24 hours? Could it have been 25 hours long? Or 30? Or 3 million hours? Or 15 million years?

Answer that one and you'll have a better grasp on what you see when you look skyward.

Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible

[mjp]

God believers:
God created the universe.

Atheists:
Prior natural conditions led to the creation of the universe.

God believers:
God created the prior conditions that led to the creation of the universe.

[fso301]

the discredited "big bang"

When was the big bang discredited?

[Wonder Warthog]

"You know what? If scientists want to use their own money to try to find evidence for the discredited "big bang" nonsense, that's fine. But the South Pole Telescope was funded with our tax dollars!"

Discredited??? By whom?? The people who want the "Big Bang" discredited are atheists who want to deny the creation, of which said "Big Bang" is one of the greatest proofs.

What about "Let there be light" is hard to understand?