Pope Francis: Evolution is real

[Frodo]

6,000 years is much too short, not just for human history, but all other things on this planet (much less the universe). There is much scientific evidence for this. The dying out of dinosaurs, the continental shift(s), the layers and layers of different rock formations, glacial movements, etc. Just a while ago, I was browsing the net reading Xinhua news and came across this topic below about bird genome, already we are looking at 60~80 million years of history, which is still considered "recent" for evolutionary history, if we are to go back to invertebrate lifeforms, it'll stretch back even further.

As for the seminar, it is not in my interest to attend topics that are not related to my work, even which I often fall asleep. I may read it if it is published in National Geographic, Time, or other magazine, or watch if if aired on History/Discovery channel. Free time, I cook. But thanks anyway.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-12/12/c_133849238.htm

Chinese-led research team unveils tree of life for birds

English.news.cn 2014-12-12 08:05:03

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 (Xinhua) -- An international team led by Chinese researchers has sequenced the genomes of 48 species of birds to create the most reliable avian tree of life to date.
This massive project, which took more than four years to complete and involved hundreds of researchers from 20 different countries around the world, analyzed at least one genome from every major bird lineage, including the woodpecker, owl, penguin, hummingbird and flamingo, and produced dozens of reports, eight of which are published Thursday in Science.
The results "have enabled us to answer numerous fundamental questions to an unprecedented scale," said co-lead author Guojie Zhang of the National Genebank at BGI in China and the University of Copenhagen.
"This is the largest whole genomic study across a single vertebrate class to date. The success of this project can only be achieved with the excellent collaboration of all the consortium members," Zhang said.
The findings supported a "big bang" theory for the evolutionary expansion of birds during the 10 to 15 million years that followed a mass extinction event about 66 million years ago that killed off all dinosaurs except some birds.
This contradicted the idea that birds blossomed 10 to 80 million years earlier before the mass extinction event, as some recent studies suggested.
"Birds are dinosaurs," said co-author Ed Braun, associate professor of biology at the University of Florida. "They're the one lineage of dinosaurs that made it through the mass extinction at the end of the so-called dinosaurs."
Based on this new genomic data, a few bird lineages that survived the mass extinction gave rise to more than 10,000 species that comprise 95 percent of all bird species living with us today, the researchers said.
The researchers also found that birds lost thousands of genes in their early evolution after birds split from other reptiles, many of which have essential functions in humans, such as in reproduction, skeleton formation and lung systems.
"This is an exciting finding, because it is quite different from what people normally think, which is that innovation is normally created by new genetic material, not the loss of it," Zhang said.
This new tree supported three independent origins of waterbirds. It also indicated that the common ancestor of core landbirds, which include songbirds, parrots, woodpeckers, owls, eagles and falcons, was an apex predator, which also gave rise to the giant terror birds that once roamed the Americas.
Birdsong was found to evolve independently at least twice. Parrots and songbirds gained the ability to learn and mimic sounds independently of hummingbirds, despite sharing many of the same genes. This is surprising because animals with similar characteristics usually share a common ancestor, the researchers said.
In general, brain circuits for musical and vocal learning in birds and humans are similar but have been arrived at via different evolutionary paths.
The researchers also found five genes related to teeth formation were switched off some 116 million years ago, in an ancestor of today's birds, causing birds to lose their teeth since then.
Their research also showed the chicken has the most similar genome to an avian ancestor, which was thought to be a feathered dinosaur.
Crocodiles were be birds' closest living relatives, with a common ancestor that lived around 240 million years ago, said the research, which also showed that crocodiles have one of the slowest-evolving genomes, whereas the pace of genetic change has been much faster in birds.
Colorful feathers are thought to be evolutionarily advantageous, giving a male bird in a given species an edge over his competitors when it comes to mating. This research found that genes involved in feather coloration evolved more quickly than other genes in eight of 46 bird lineages.
They also estimated that the today's penguins first appeared around 60 million years ago.
Overall, the genomic structure of birds has stayed remarkably the same among species for more than 100 million years and the evolution rate across all bird species is slower compared to mammals.
Editor: Xiang Bo


Cheers!

Looks like you simply buy into the whole evolution story. When you read such reports do you ask yourself some basic questions?

You have many intelligent scientists studying genomic information. Information can only come from intelligence. But evolution is random and undirected and purely natural process. Surely you can see that something is obviously not syncing? Also, if evolution can be occurring slowly or quickly over long periods of time (and there is absolutely no way to observe it, so it means that's not a scientific claim at all) then it means evolution cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, then again it falls outside of scientific testing. Ask yourself, which claims that evolution make can be subjected to scientific testing i.e. observations can be made?

BTW, 6000 years is a long time, objectively speaking.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Bro, the Theory of Evolution has a hard time justifying many things that have evolved, and I earlier has said that BOTH theories (creation and evolution) might be wrong. The only reason I am taking the side of evolution is that this field is still exploring, poking, searching. And more discoveries are being made each day. Whereas creationist just accept the word of the written text that was written before the Age of Reason and Enlightenment. No, I have not bought into the whole evolution story, but keep an open mind, and having said this, I am able to accept that in this physical life, I may not find all the answers that I have asked, but that is okay, I can live with that.

BTW, 6,000 years is a miniscule period in Earth's history, much less the Universe. It may be a long time for you and me (in fact, 1 week can be a bloody long time!), but in cosmic terms, it is almost nothing.

Cheers!

Looks like you simply buy into the whole evolution story. When you read such reports do you ask yourself some basic questions?

You have many intelligent scientists studying genomic information. Information can only come from intelligence. But evolution is random and undirected and purely natural process. Surely you can see that something is obviously not syncing? Also, if evolution can be occurring slowly or quickly over long periods of time (and there is absolutely no way to observe it, so it means that's not a scientific claim at all) then it means evolution cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, then again it falls outside of scientific testing. Ask yourself, which claims that evolution make can be subjected to scientific testing i.e. observations can be made?

BTW, 6000 years is a long time, objectively speaking.

 

[Frodo]

Bro, the Theory of Evolution has a hard time justifying many things that have evolved, and I earlier has said that BOTH theories (creation and evolution) might be wrong. The only reason I am taking the side of evolution is that this field is still exploring, poking, searching. And more discoveries are being made each day. Whereas creationist just accept the word of the written text that was written before the Age of Reason and Enlightenment. No, I have not bought into the whole evolution story, but keep an open mind, and having said this, I am able to accept that in this physical life, I may not find all the answers that I have asked, but that is okay, I can live with that.

BTW, 6,000 years is a miniscule period in Earth's history, much less the Universe. It may be a long time for you and me (in fact, 1 week can be a bloody long time!), but in cosmic terms, it is almost nothing.

Cheers!

Not true. There are only 2 views to this question, either creation or evolution. So there cannot be a situation where both are wrong, unless you know of a third alternative. On this, both creationists and evolutionists are not in disagreement. You always see the evolutionists argue against creationism, and not offering a third option, right?

If your reason for accepting evolution is that people are still exploring it, and say that creationists are not doing any research, then you are wrong again. Creationists are also active in research. For example there is https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php/research and http://www.icr.org/how-we-do-research

Yes, creationists accept the Word of God as it is written. Why, because it is God telling us what happened in the past. You mentioned the so-called age of reason and enlightenment. But do you know that these so-called enlightened people cannot even explain why logic and reason exist? The very laws of logic are derived from a supreme Mind, they do not originate from mere matter. Jesus is called the LOGOS, from which we get the word logic.

You said you have not bought into the whole evolution story, I am interested to know why and what areas you have issues with. No one is saying you need to have all the answers to life, but you have to admit that you are believing in evolution solely BY FAITH, just as creationists believe in creation by faith too. Creationists don't have all the answers, and we can live with that.

Of course, if one assumes that the universe is really 14 billion years old, 6000 years is nothing in comparison. But that just begs the question, is the universe really 14 billion years old? As a case in point, some scientists have submitted dinonsaur fossils for carbon 14 testing and detected c14 in them. What does that tell you? Simply that the existence of c14 in dinosaur fossils prove that these fossils CANNOT be millions of years old. http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

 

[Agoraphobic]

There are only two view because there has only been two that have been fiercely supported, and also because no group/person has pushed for another view. At this point in time, neither has been able to answer all of man's question - so it only means one thing - we do not yet have all the answers, and can only be explained by some other reasoning outside these realms.

Sorry, didn't know creationists are still doing research, I thought they already received all the answers - that God made them by saying "Let there be ....."

I didn't say the universe is 14 billion years old, I just said 6,000 years is much too short. How old the universe is, well, much older than 6,000 years for sure - our homo sapien evolution already dates back much further than this figure.

Instead of you asking me all the questions, of which I've already admitted that I do not have them (still looking, listening), let me ask you - which of the two schools of thought is right? And why?

Cheers!

Not true. There are only 2 views to this question, either creation or evolution. So there cannot be a situation where both are wrong, unless you know of a third alternative. On this, both creationists and evolutionists are not in disagreement. You always see the evolutionists argue against creationism, and not offering a third option, right?

If your reason for accepting evolution is that people are still exploring it, and say that creationists are not doing any research, then you are wrong again. Creationists are also active in research. For example there is https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php/research and http://www.icr.org/how-we-do-research

Yes, creationists accept the Word of God as it is written. Why, because it is God telling us what happened in the past. You mentioned the so-called age of reason and enlightenment. But do you know that these so-called enlightened people cannot even explain why logic and reason exist? The very laws of logic are derived from a supreme Mind, they do not originate from mere matter. Jesus is called the LOGOS, from which we get the word logic.

You said you have not bought into the whole evolution story, I am interested to know why and what areas you have issues with. No one is saying you need to have all the answers to life, but you have to admit that you are believing in evolution solely BY FAITH, just as creationists believe in creation by faith too. Creationists don't have all the answers, and we can live with that.

Of course, if one assumes that the universe is really 14 billion years old, 6000 years is nothing in comparison. But that just begs the question, is the universe really 14 billion years old? As a case in point, some scientists have submitted dinonsaur fossils for carbon 14 testing and detected c14 in them. What does that tell you? Simply that the existence of c14 in dinosaur fossils prove that these fossils CANNOT be millions of years old. http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

 

[Frodo]

There are only two view because there has only been two that have been fiercely supported, and also because no group/person has pushed for another view. At this point in time, neither has been able to answer all of man's question - so it only means one thing - we do not yet have all the answers, and can only be explained by some other reasoning outside these realms.

Sorry, didn't know creationists are still doing research, I thought they already received all the answers - that God made them by saying "Let there be ....."

I didn't say the universe is 14 billion years old, I just said 6,000 years is much too short. How old the universe is, well, much older than 6,000 years for sure - our homo sapien evolution already dates back much further than this figure.

Instead of you asking me all the questions, of which I've already admitted that I do not have them (still looking, listening), let me ask you - which of the two schools of thought is right? And why?

Cheers!

Again I put it to you that there is no third view, there are only 2 views. If you really do think about it you would surely agree with me. Either the universe made itself (evolution did it) or it was created (God did it). How come no one else can think of a third view after so long? Simply because there's none! To talk of a non-existent 3rd view of which no one knows about would be a rather futile debate exercise, isn't it?

Yes, while we do not yet have all the answers, there is much that we already know for sure, beyond a shadow of doubt, using logic and even facts. For example, logic says that something cannot create itself, but that's what evolution means. And there is also the biological fact that only life can come from life. Yet evolution has to believe that abiogenesis is true, despite what we already know as a biological law. And then there is DNA, the genetic code, which every biologist knows codes for information. Information implies intelligence.

Do you know that the great scientists of the past were believers in God? Belief in God is not the death of science and discovery, but was the impetus for it. This is a fact well documented in books. Believing scientists who explore the created universe are only knowing more and more about how intelligent the Creator is, how wise and knowledgeable.

Whether you actually say the universe is 14 billion years old or not, is besides the point, though I would think you would simply toe the line here. Anyway, to say that 6000 years is too short, is again with reference to the billions of years, which would then be begging the question. As to homo sapiens being older than that, this is due to what many believe is what radiometric dating methods lead us to believe. But as the movie "Evolution's Achilles' Heels" shows (yep I got the DVD!) the claims are overstated and there are assumptions in it, enough to really question the certainty of the conclusions reached.

And to address your last question, creation is true. Why? To use the law of the excluded middle, if evolution is false, then creation is true. But that's just one way to argue, I think my replies to you so far have given some more food for thought as to why I believe creation is true.

 

[Agoraphobic]

I think we are encroaching on a third view here - you already know it is called Intelligent Design. This differs from the "Creation" concept as preached by hardcore biblical adherents mainly because it is deduced from empirical observations and not just taken as the word of God. While it is the most logical reason I've seen so far, it comes about only because evolution falls short of explaining much of the complexity in design of organisms (and their parts/components) we find today, and no fossils have been discovered for organisms in the transitory stage of evolution. So, we are still searching.

This belief in "God" thing is personal, some call it spirituality, some are convinced of "god's" works, other are not. In the past, more people believed that "god" has the ability to interfere with our lives, but presently, we explain these occurences as nature, climate, atmospheric, geological occurrences, and much less as acts of god or other divine works. For me, it is a personal choice, whether our thought are true or not, doesn't make a difference to the larger society, its just personal satisfaction. You come across as a believer (in God), that's your choice, one question here - is God male or female?

Cheers!

Again I put it to you that there is no third view, there are only 2 views. If you really do think about it you would surely agree with me. Either the universe made itself (evolution did it) or it was created (God did it). How come no one else can think of a third view after so long? Simply because there's none! To talk of a non-existent 3rd view of which no one knows about would be a rather futile debate exercise, isn't it?

Yes, while we do not yet have all the answers, there is much that we already know for sure, beyond a shadow of doubt, using logic and even facts. For example, logic says that something cannot create itself, but that's what evolution means. And there is also the biological fact that only life can come from life. Yet evolution has to believe that abiogenesis is true, despite what we already know as a biological law. And then there is DNA, the genetic code, which every biologist knows codes for information. Information implies intelligence.

Do you know that the great scientists of the past were believers in God? Belief in God is not the death of science and discovery, but was the impetus for it. This is a fact well documented in books. Believing scientists who explore the created universe are only knowing more and more about how intelligent the Creator is, how wise and knowledgeable.

Whether you actually say the universe is 14 billion years old or not, is besides the point, though I would think you would simply toe the line here. Anyway, to say that 6000 years is too short, is again with reference to the billions of years, which would then be begging the question. As to homo sapiens being older than that, this is due to what many believe is what radiometric dating methods lead us to believe. But as the movie "Evolution's Achilles' Heels" shows (yep I got the DVD!) the claims are overstated and there are assumptions in it, enough to really question the certainty of the conclusions reached.

And to address your last question, creation is true. Why? To use the law of the excluded middle, if evolution is false, then creation is true. But that's just one way to argue, I think my replies to you so far have given some more food for thought as to why I believe creation is true.

 

[Frodo]

I think we are encroaching on a third view here - you already know it is called Intelligent Design. This differs from the "Creation" concept as preached by hardcore biblical adherents mainly because it is deduced from empirical observations and not just taken as the word of God. While it is the most logical reason I've seen so far, it comes about only because evolution falls short of explaining much of the complexity in design of organisms (and their parts/components) we find today, and no fossils have been discovered for organisms in the transitory stage of evolution. So, we are still searching.

This belief in "God" thing is personal, some call it spirituality, some are convinced of "god's" works, other are not. In the past, more people believed that "god" has the ability to interfere with our lives, but presently, we explain these occurences as nature, climate, atmospheric, geological occurrences, and much less as acts of god or other divine works. For me, it is a personal choice, whether our thought are true or not, doesn't make a difference to the larger society, its just personal satisfaction. You come across as a believer (in God), that's your choice, one question here - is God male or female?

Cheers!

This is hardly a third view as it is a mixture of the 2 views. In fact, I will so much as lay it on the line that ANY other view would be a mixture of these only 2 views. In my view, and in the pure evolutionists view, such views are at worst compromised views and at best misguided though good intentioned. You see, the whole idea of evolution is that it is naturalistic and as such there is no need for God, no job for Him. To merely append God to the process is redundant and not appreciated by the evolutionist at all.

I believe that intelligent design is correct insofar as it refutes naturalism, but it fails to go far enough. Creationists can affirm many aspects of intelligent design. We even believe that God is the intelligent designer, something that the ID people normally would not want to profess, except perhaps in private. But we strongly disagree with the ID in that they basically accept every aspect of evolution, except that they reject the idea that it is purely naturalistic and undirected.

You take the view that belief in God is a matter of personal satisfaction, as if it doesn't matter whether there really is a God or not. I strongly disagree. If God exists, and He has made Himself known, and He has given us rules to live by, and will judge us by how we live, then it makes a whole lot of difference whether we align our lives to Him. As to your last question, if you want a Bible answer, the question is, God has no gender though He has revealed Himself in the masculine form for our understanding of God as a relational Personal Being, not an impersonal Thing. God is pure Spirit, not matter, which we possess. As created physical beings we are created male and female for procreation purposes. http://www.gotquestions.org/God-male-female.html

 

[Sinkie]

Not true. There are only 2 views to this question, either creation or evolution.............BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and more BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH..........

2 VIEWS????????? Only 2 views?

You must have been fed on shit all your fuckless life!!!

You're lacking a huge chunk of the frontal cortex. Discussing with you on anything will be a TOTAL waste of time and resources.

Go and die, before I change my mind and put the ultimate curse on you and your loved ones for 7,000 generations, without a break.

 

[Frodo]

2 VIEWS????????? Only 2 views?

You must have been fed on shit all your fuckless life!!!

You're lacking a huge chunk of the frontal cortex. Discussing with you on anything will be a TOTAL waste of time and resources.

Go and die, before I change my mind and put the ultimate curse on you and your loved ones for 7,000 generations, without a break.

It's ok if you have no wish to discuss, I am not about to cast my pearls before swine.

 

[Agoraphobic]

If you wish to call it an extension of the earlier views, that is your choice. The way I see it, this ID view is more independent as it is derived from observations and deductions and not from some "words of wisdom" text. Whether it is correct or not is still left to be proven, but at least it is logical and does provoke the mind. BTW, you have assigned God to be the creator of life on Earth, if God is true, how do we know that he didn't make something which in turn made us and other life on this planet? There are still lots of questions, the universe is too vast for our miniscule minds to understand it and everything in it, so it make it simpler that we just accept God. For this, religion provides the answers, but as humans on earth, which religion is true? Why does religion forbade this and that, things that are natural to human inclinations? Bro, this topic can never end, and no explanation will satisfy everybody, that is why I say belief in God is a personal thing. While on this topic, I choose to separate God from religion (which is man made). This God entity is still unknown to us (although the person we call Jesus Christ best explains God to us). We know God through religious teachings, so our idea of God is again man-made (which is why I asked you if you think God was male or female). Some people have said that God cannot be described, but can only be felt, which is perhaps closer to the truth.

Sorry to have drifted, but coming back the the thread, I suppose we all have our reasons to believe what we believe, and for most, we will never find answers to all the questions we have in our lives. Whether it is Creation, Evolution, ID, or something else, our short mortal lives only allows us to dwelve on little things concerning ourselves, and maybe our communities, but there are much larger things,

Cheers!

This is hardly a third view as it is a mixture of the 2 views. In fact, I will so much as lay it on the line that ANY other view would be a mixture of these only 2 views. In my view, and in the pure evolutionists view, such views are at worst compromised views and at best misguided though good intentioned. You see, the whole idea of evolution is that it is naturalistic and as such there is no need for God, no job for Him. To merely append God to the process is redundant and not appreciated by the evolutionist at all.

I believe that intelligent design is correct insofar as it refutes naturalism, but it fails to go far enough. Creationists can affirm many aspects of intelligent design. We even believe that God is the intelligent designer, something that the ID people normally would not want to profess, except perhaps in private. But we strongly disagree with the ID in that they basically accept every aspect of evolution, except that they reject the idea that it is purely naturalistic and undirected.

You take the view that belief in God is a matter of personal satisfaction, as if it doesn't matter whether there really is a God or not. I strongly disagree. If God exists, and He has made Himself known, and He has given us rules to live by, and will judge us by how we live, then it makes a whole lot of difference whether we align our lives to Him. As to your last question, if you want a Bible answer, the question is, God has no gender though He has revealed Himself in the masculine form for our understanding of God as a relational Personal Being, not an impersonal Thing. God is pure Spirit, not matter, which we possess. As created physical beings we are created male and female for procreation purposes. http://www.gotquestions.org/God-male-female.html

 

[Frodo]

If you wish to call it an extension of the earlier views, that is your choice. The way I see it, this ID view is more independent as it is derived from observations and deductions and not from some "words of wisdom" text. Whether it is correct or not is still left to be proven, but at least it is logical and does provoke the mind. BTW, you have assigned God to be the creator of life on Earth, if God is true, how do we know that he didn't make something which in turn made us and other life on this planet? There are still lots of questions, the universe is too vast for our miniscule minds to understand it and everything in it, so it make it simpler that we just accept God. For this, religion provides the answers, but as humans on earth, which religion is true? Why does religion forbade this and that, things that are natural to human inclinations? Bro, this topic can never end, and no explanation will satisfy everybody, that is why I say belief in God is a personal thing. While on this topic, I choose to separate God from religion (which is man made). This God entity is still unknown to us (although the person we call Jesus Christ best explains God to us). We know God through religious teachings, so our idea of God is again man-made (which is why I asked you if you think God was male or female). Some people have said that God cannot be described, but can only be felt, which is perhaps closer to the truth.

Sorry to have drifted, but coming back the the thread, I suppose we all have our reasons to believe what we believe, and for most, we will never find answers to all the questions we have in our lives. Whether it is Creation, Evolution, ID, or something else, our short mortal lives only allows us to dwelve on little things concerning ourselves, and maybe our communities, but there are much larger things,

Cheers!

I think you are aware that most ID proponents are Christians? The reason why some of them choose to focus on ID is not because they do not have prior beliefs like creationists have, but so as to engage evolutionists on supposedly pure scientific terms. But I think this approach is misguided, simply because it is not a level playing field. The evolutionists aren't dealing with pure science, as they are committed naturalists which is a belief system.

ID is a very simple and I might add, an effective way to draw people away from the supposed prowess of blind, undirected evolutionary forces to give us all that we see around us. At least it shakes the evolution community and irks them somewhat. Makes them uncomfortable. Draws their fire. And if you are inclined to ID then at least I would say you are still facing the right direction, though not yet on the right path.

Is it simple to simply accept God? I don't think so, if it is, many, including you would have done so already! In any case, the ease or difficulty with which people accept God or credit God is not an argument against God as Creator. To say that God is unknown, is to say that you know enough about God to claim that God cannot be known. But how do you know that? Christians only claim to know what God has revealed to us. And what has been made known to us, is enough to condemn us for denying His existence and creative acts. And that is why the Bible says those who say there is no God are fools, for the created things point to the Creator, since nothing comes from nothing. But the universe is created from God who has always existed.

Yes, life is short. But this short life we live has enormous implications for eternity that comes after we breathed our last breath. There is no need to know all the answers, but there is an urgent need to know the ONE who has all the answers. God.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Actually I was given a booklet by a group of Jehovah Witnesses about Creation vs. Evolution, and in it, there was a mention about ID, that was a few years ago and I never paid much attention to it, so you are right - that news came from Christians. It matters not to me what or who believes what, my focus is on more immediate needs like making a living, stretching my dollar, maintaining my health, but once in a while, I look beyond these things and try to appreciate the world outside mine.

I have nothing against God, or any religion for that matter, as long as one does not impose his/her ways onto others, that's fine by me. As is stands right now, I'll say I remain open to views and discussions and probably am at the stage of the early Jews when they questioned what God wanted of them, whether sacrifices (human/animal) were needed, etc. In this area, I can appreciate the appearance of this Jesus Christ person who made it known that God was loving, compassionate, and forgiving. And it took St. Paul to bring this message to the gentiles (us included). Too bad our species still lives by our primal instincts and carry out our actions directed by greed. This time of the year (Christmas season), we get reminded by song and stories of the good of the Christ and it assures us that there is good in humanity. For this, religion is good. Merry Christmas!!

Cheers!

I think you are aware that most ID proponents are Christians? The reason why some of them choose to focus on ID is not because they do not have prior beliefs like creationists have, but so as to engage evolutionists on supposedly pure scientific terms. But I think this approach is misguided, simply because it is not a level playing field. The evolutionists aren't dealing with pure science, as they are committed naturalists which is a belief system.

ID is a very simple and I might add, an effective way to draw people away from the supposed prowess of blind, undirected evolutionary forces to give us all that we see around us. At least it shakes the evolution community and irks them somewhat. Makes them uncomfortable. Draws their fire. And if you are inclined to ID then at least I would say you are still facing the right direction, though not yet on the right path.

Is it simple to simply accept God? I don't think so, if it is, many, including you would have done so already! In any case, the ease or difficulty with which people accept God or credit God is not an argument against God as Creator. To say that God is unknown, is to say that you know enough about God to claim that God cannot be known. But how do you know that? Christians only claim to know what God has revealed to us. And what has been made known to us, is enough to condemn us for denying His existence and creative acts. And that is why the Bible says those who say there is no God are fools, for the created things point to the Creator, since nothing comes from nothing. But the universe is created from God who has always existed.

Yes, life is short. But this short life we live has enormous implications for eternity that comes after we breathed our last breath. There is no need to know all the answers, but there is an urgent need to know the ONE who has all the answers. God.

 

[Frodo]

Actually I was given a booklet by a group of Jehovah Witnesses about Creation vs. Evolution, and in it, there was a mention about ID, that was a few years ago and I never paid much attention to it, so you are right - that news came from Christians. It matters not to me what or who believes what, my focus is on more immediate needs like making a living, stretching my dollar, maintaining my health, but once in a while, I look beyond these things and try to appreciate the world outside mine.

I have nothing against God, or any religion for that matter, as long as one does not impose his/her ways onto others, that's fine by me. As is stands right now, I'll say I remain open to views and discussions and probably am at the stage of the early Jews when they questioned what God wanted of them, whether sacrifices (human/animal) were needed, etc. In this area, I can appreciate the appearance of this Jesus Christ person who made it known that God was loving, compassionate, and forgiving. And it took St. Paul to bring this message to the gentiles (us included). Too bad our species still lives by our primal instincts and carry out our actions directed by greed. This time of the year (Christmas season), we get reminded by song and stories of the good of the Christ and it assures us that there is good in humanity. For this, religion is good. Merry Christmas!!

Cheers!

Yeah I get that too, living for the moment, the day by day. Yet the thought never leaves that time is God's gift to us, being alive is a gift, not a given. Considering how our lives can be just tragically taken from us, even if you are enjoying a cuppa in a cafe. So perhaps it might be good that we stop more often and pause and consider more the eternal matters and what lies outside the day to day.

It's good that you have nothing against God, though I hope it is not along the lines of "I have nothing against a God that does not exist. Why would I?" Anyway, in my view, the existence of God definitey will impose obligations on us. A God who made everything but makes no demands? That's not the God revealed in the Bible. Even Adam and Eve had moral obligations imposed on them. It is what is being imposed that matters, not whether anything is being imposed on us. A lot of things are being imposed upon us every day of our lives, some we accept others we don't. So the God of the Bible has revealed Himself to us as Creator, and has imposed upon us the obligation to live in accordance with His moral laws and the laws He has established in the created order. And that's what Christmas is about. Man has failed to live up to God's moral laws. Christ came to live the perfect life of obedience. He was without sin. And thus became the perfect Lamb to take away the sins of the world.

One song that I really love this Christmas, is "Mary, Did You Know?" and it has been nicely performed by Pentatonix. Check it out here at www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifCWN5pJGIE

 

[TeeKi]

Pope Francis must be mad! Has he not read Hebrew 4:12? God created Adam and Eve and we all are their descendants.

"All Scripture is inspired by God." Hebrew 4:12

Evolution, should be deemed as evilution as it is not real science but merely distortions from the truths of God's Word revealed to men. It's is rather simply to crash all the so called findings and discovers using the pure Word! They are rubbish and not fit to be even called theory of science.


Yes, the bible is worth reading because:

Every verse is factual

Every verse is inerrant

Every verse is inspired

Every verse is holy

Every verse is nothing but the truth

Every verse glorifies

Every verse is moral

Every verse is simply AWESOME!!!!!!

........

God blessed you and may TS open your eyes big! Don't continue to be misguided by false science of evolution.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Thanks for the link to the song, never heard it before, I am more accustomed to traditional Christmas carols like O Holy Night.

I have nothing against God, but at the same time, do not feel obliged to align my beliefs and behaviour with what is preached in the bible (or any other religious text) although I abide by rules for basic human decency and civilized living, not because of fear of retribution or reward to getting to heaven after his life. Just live by the simple code "Do unto others what you'd want them to do unto you." Main reason being is that we do not really know what happens to us after we die, only speculate, but while alive, make the best of this life, for ourselves, and others around us. Nobody knows what happens after we die, will our souls (if it exists) reunite in heaven with our loved ones who've gone before us or punished in hell, will we become spiritual beings assigned to greater cosmic duties in other worlds, reincarnate into another lifeform back on this planet, or just disappear forever? We will never know.

Cheers!

Yeah I get that too, living for the moment, the day by day. Yet the thought never leaves that time is God's gift to us, being alive is a gift, not a given. Considering how our lives can be just tragically taken from us, even if you are enjoying a cuppa in a cafe. So perhaps it might be good that we stop more often and pause and consider more the eternal matters and what lies outside the day to day.

It's good that you have nothing against God, though I hope it is not along the lines of "I have nothing against a God that does not exist. Why would I?" Anyway, in my view, the existence of God definitey will impose obligations on us. A God who made everything but makes no demands? That's not the God revealed in the Bible. Even Adam and Eve had moral obligations imposed on them. nIt is what is being imposed that matters, not whether anything is being imposed on us. A lot of things are being imposed upon us every day of our lives, some we accept others we don't. So the God of the Bible has revealed Himself to us as Creator, and has imposed upon us the obligation to live in accordance with His moral laws and the laws He has established in the created order. And that's what Christmas is about. Man has failed to live up to God's moral laws. Christ came to live the perfect life of obedience. He was without sin. And thus became the perfect Lamb to take away the sins of the world.

One song that I really love this Christmas, is "Mary, Did You Know?" and it has been nicely performed by Pentatonix. Check it out here at www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifCWN5pJGIE

 

[Frodo]

Thanks for the link to the song, never heard it before, I am more accustomed to traditional Christmas carols like O Holy Night.

I have nothing against God, but at the same time, do not feel obliged to align my beliefs and behaviour with what is preached in the bible (or any other religious text) although I abide by rules for basic human decency and civilized living, not because of fear of retribution or reward to getting to heaven after his life. Just live by the simple code "Do unto others what you'd want them to do unto you." Main reason being is that we do not really know what happens to us after we die, only speculate, but while alive, make the best of this life, for ourselves, and others around us. Nobody knows what happens after we die, will our souls (if it exists) reunite in heaven with our loved ones who've gone before us or punished in hell, will we become spiritual beings assigned to greater cosmic duties in other worlds, reincarnate into another lifeform back on this planet, or just disappear forever? We will never know.

Cheers!

Is your agnosticism about the spiritual things a matter of "we DO not know" or "we CAN never know"? I mean, we have the Bible that tells us that Jesus KNOWS about what is going to happen when we die, and He has told us about it. So Jesus DO claim to know what will happen. What do you do with that information then? Or if you decide it is "we CAN never know", how do you know that? Or how can you know that we can never know? Your claim to knowing that is being challenged.

Whatever moral principles you choose to live by, it reflects the fact that there are objective moral values to which we can attest to. But just where do such moral values come from? Why are we obligated to act morally towards one another? What sets us apart from the animals? Again it must come from God, a moral Being who created us as moral beings, and only human beings are made in His image. That's the distinction between man and animals.

 

[drifter]

Christians likes to ask stupid questions that can never have an answer ...and using those stupid questions to question science , it's like asking what size of heels
Cinderella wear

 

[Frodo]

Christians likes to ask stupid questions that can never have an answer ...and using those stupid questions to question science , it's like asking what size of heels
Cinderella wear

LOL! I like to ask questions to which ignorant village atheists like drifter can never have an answer based on atheism, and any attempt at answering will just end up affirming the existence of God which is the very thing he wants to deny. Not an envious position to be in at all!:p

 

[drifter]

LOL! I like to ask questions to which ignorant village atheists like drifter can never have an answer based on atheism, and any attempt at answering will just end up affirming the existence of God which is the very thing he wants to deny. Not an envious position to be in at all!:p

Yes , stupid questions are still questions . So what's the color of your god's underwear . By the way , the term " village " only applies to ppl who are superstitions like you .

Superstition :
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.
a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c. Idolatry.

 

[Frodo]

Yes , stupid questions are still questions . So what's the color of your god's underwear . By the way , the term " village " only applies to ppl who are superstitions like you .

Superstition :
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.
a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c. Idolatry.

It hardly needs to be said that the ignorant village atheist drifter cannot demonstrate that belief in God is irrational. Yet the moment that the atheist attempts to use logic to show that, he ends up first having to assume the existence of God in order for his argument to even get off the ground.