Pope Francis: Evolution is real

[verse1006]

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.

 

[Frodo]

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.

Just wondering if all the intelligent scientists working on this project also believe that there is no intelligence behind the genome make up of birds.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Looks like more and more effort is being put into this to help understand this branch of science. It is already being accepted as the logical way of thought. Sometimes I wonder whether we will be able to clone/reproduce animals that have been extinct like the thylacine, dodo bird, smilodon, etc.

Cheers!

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 (Xinhua) -- An international team led by Chinese researchers has sequenced the genomes of 48 species of birds .......................

 

[Agoraphobic]

Don't know about the birds, but there is one intelligent being behind the evolution of dogs and many breeds of bovines and porcines - man.

Cheers!

Just wondering if all the intelligent scientists working on this project also believe that there is no intelligence behind the genome make up of birds.

 

[Frodo]

It is not me that is confused, nobody is, we just base our "knowledge" on discoveries made and announced by people in their fields. Example, we used to think that T Rex was covered by reptilian scales, but now, new discoveries are saying it was likely to be feathers, why should this cause me to tremble? We don't really know what T Rex looks like, but know it based on fossils and theories put forth by palaeontologists and dinosaur researchers, knowledge of this does not change the way we live. God's word (the Bible) doesn't talk about dinosaurs, so did they ever exist? Or did the great flood wipe them out because Noah only saved the good animals?

Cheers!

Truth is, there is a lot of confusion going on in the origins debate. One of the areas of confusion is the failure to note the difference between experimental science and historical science. The former needs little explanation, as it is science that is observable and repeatable and testable and the kind that gives us technology we enjoy. The latter is where people miss. Historical science is akin to forensic science where it deals with events that happened in the past, or supposedly so. There is no test you can make regarding the past, no scientists to observe the past. Rather what you have is circumstantial evidence which requires a framework to make sense of, a story to tell. Evolution is one such story about origins.

Thus we have fossils of dinosaurs, and we can assemble them. But what colour they were is really anyone's guess. And are you sure that the Bible does not mention dinosaur? Did you know that the word dinosaur was invented only in 1841? And the Bible was translated into English hundreds of years before that. So what do you think? Would it be reasonable to say that because the word "dinosaur" does not appear so it means the Bible denies their existence? Do you know that the Bible mentioned "dragons" and is the Hebrew word Tannin? Please check it out for yourself. This is also one area of confusion that many people have!

 

[Frodo]

Looks like more and more effort is being put into this to help understand this branch of science. It is already being accepted as the logical way of thought. Sometimes I wonder whether we will be able to clone/reproduce animals that have been extinct like the thylacine, dodo bird, smilodon, etc.

Cheers!

Yes, this is exciting, and falls under experimental science. The thing is, you need intelligent scientists to work on the DNA, which is coded information. And information always implies intelligence, and thus logically means there is an intelligent designer. To deny this conclusion is irrational, do you agree?

 

[Frodo]

Don't know about the birds, but there is one intelligent being behind the evolution of dogs and many breeds of bovines and porcines - man.

Cheers!

Man may be responsible for selective breeding of dogs, but man could not originate the dog kind. And no matter how man tweak and play with the dogs genome, you only end up having more dogs, even if some are hideous or hilarious looking! This is what the Bible means by living things reproducing after their kind. We observe this everyday. But evolution means that a non-dog evolved into a dog. This has never been observed, so it is mere belief. Evolution is just that, a belief.

 

[Frodo]

I see you have acknowledged that the bible is not a biological book, wish to remind you that it is also not a history book or a book that contains anything factual. To some, it is a religious book, to others, it is a story book. I wouldn't read anything in it as interpret it as truthful.

You seem bent on finding out my actual inclination or beliefs, even though I myself am not concerned which side I lean to just that I go by whatever is logical, and for the time being, evolution seems to point in that direction although it does not seem able to answer all the questions we have, but if you say I am atheist because I do not believe in God (at least the Biblical version), then I suppose you can call me an atheist.

And the path via Jesus, it's been discussed a few times already in this forum that the story is fictitious, that the Biblical Jesus did not exist, and only those with faith will believe in his messianic powers, but if you choose to have this faith, it is your prerogative and I will not challenge it, it is your right. However, it will be considered kind of you not to impose your beliefs on others, because to them, it is stupidity.

Cheers!

I think you are mistaken. While the Bible is not a history book per se, it touches on history as well. You said the Bible contains nothing factual, are you sure? What do you mean by that? There are a lot of propositional statements in the Bible, so these are truth claims. So how can you conclude that the Bible does not make any truth claims?

You said you go by that which is logical, as if to imply that those who believe throw logic out of the window. Again this is far from the truth. All logic is God's logic. The one who goes with logic will have to account for the existence of logic, and this logically points to God. How can evolution, supposedly a mindless, undirected, natural process give rise to laws of logic?

Are you sure the Biblical Jesus did not exist? Sure there are some "scholars" who say he did not, but even Bart Ehrman has written a book to establish the fact that Jesus existed. And Bart Ehrman is no friend of Christianity. To deny the historical Jesus is again irrational. History is divided into BC and AD because Jesus existed. It takes much more faith to deny His existence than to accept that He existed. Again if you are truly on the side of logic you would not choose the side of denial. That's illogical.

 

[Agoraphobic]

A forummer already said earlier - the Bible is not a book on biology, and we read it for what it is. I won't find fault with it just because it does not mention dinosaurs, it wasn't supposed to know about their existence when it was written. It was written by humans, for humans, and at that time it was written, our species just barely came out of the bronze or iron age and were largely agriculture based and likely still very superstitious, attributing weather/climate to the moods of the gods. Some more intelligent ones probably had an interest in astrology and were able to relate movements of the celestial bodies (stars, planets) to earth's seasons but were only able to relate to the masses via supernatural/divine terms, which was easily accepted without question.

I agree with you that much of the modern "historical" science is speculative and scientists can only make guesses, and that is the best we can arrive at and at this time, accept them as "facts." But we remain flexible that new discoveries my shatter existing/old ones.

Cheers!

Truth is, there is a lot of confusion going on in the origins debate. One of the areas of confusion is the failure to note the difference between experimental science and historical science. The former needs little explanation, as it is science that is observable and repeatable and testable and the kind that gives us technology we enjoy. The latter is where people miss. Historical science is akin to forensic science where it deals with events that happened in the past, or supposedly so. There is no test you can make regarding the past, no scientists to observe the past. Rather what you have is circumstantial evidence which requires a framework to make sense of, a story to tell. Evolution is one such story about origins.

Thus we have fossils of dinosaurs, and we can assemble them. But what colour they were is really anyone's guess. And are you sure that the Bible does not mention dinosaur? Did you know that the word dinosaur was invented only in 1841? And the Bible was translated into English hundreds of years before that. So what do you think? Would it be reasonable to say that because the word "dinosaur" does not appear so it means the Bible denies their existence? Do you know that the Bible mentioned "dragons" and is the Hebrew word Tannin? Please check it out for yourself. This is also one area of confusion that many people have!

 

[Agoraphobic]

I don't dispute this. Have to add that we still do not have an idea who/what this intelligent being is. You may call this entity God which I suppose you are entitled to, but how do we know that this "God" is the ultimate creator? An wasn't created by an earlier creator? It could go on and on.

Cheers!

Yes, this is exciting, and falls under experimental science. The thing is, you need intelligent scientists to work on the DNA, which is coded information. And information always implies intelligence, and thus logically means there is an intelligent designer. To deny this conclusion is irrational, do you agree?

 

[Agoraphobic]

In our short existence, and the knowledge gathered so far, this is what we can offer, dog from wolf. which we can say, wild dog, or dog is man-domesticated wolf. We are yet able to explain satisfactorily how complex organism evolved from simple single-celled organism apart from saying it took place over eons of time. Some even theorize life came from meteors from space. Yes, in this case, it is a belief. No different from belief in God from the Bible. just different school of thought. The only difference is believers in the God theory believe they have the answers, and the believers of science find the "God" theory too simplistic. Again like I said before, there are questions I may not find answers to in this life.

Cheers!

Man may be responsible for selective breeding of dogs, but man could not originate the dog kind. And no matter how man tweak and play with the dogs genome, you only end up having more dogs, even if some are hideous or hilarious looking! This is what the Bible means by living things reproducing after their kind. We observe this everyday. But evolution means that a non-dog evolved into a dog. This has never been observed, so it is mere belief. Evolution is just that, a belief.

 

[Frodo]

I don't dispute this. Have to add that we still do not have an idea who/what this intelligent being is. You may call this entity God which I suppose you are entitled to, but how do we know that this "God" is the ultimate creator? An wasn't created by an earlier creator? It could go on and on.

Cheers!

The term God is applied to a supreme Being who created the universe. It is an understandable term, right? And when we talk about ultimate being, it is again illogical to ask what is prior to this ultimate being. You consider yourself logical, so I think you can see the irrationality in asking who created the creator when the Creator is defined as a necessary being and also eternal. And rather than try to imagine an infinite series of in-between creators which again is illogical and answers nothing, why not just cut to the chase and accept there is just one eternal supreme being?

 

[Frodo]

In our short existence, and the knowledge gathered so far, this is what we can offer, dog from wolf. which we can say, wild dog, or dog is man-domesticated wolf. We are yet able to explain satisfactorily how complex organism evolved from simple single-celled organism apart from saying it took place over eons of time. Some even theorize life came from meteors from space. Yes, in this case, it is a belief. No different from belief in God from the Bible. just different school of thought. The only difference is believers in the God theory believe they have the answers, and the believers of science find the "God" theory too simplistic. Again like I said before, there are questions I may not find answers to in this life.

Cheers!

Creationists regard the dog and wolf as belonging to the same kind, so there is no dispute here. And here is where irrationality comes in, how can simple gives rise to complex information? Not to mention that even the so-called simple is anything but simple! We can now looked into the simplest of cell and see how complex it is! Just when would evolutionist come to terms that their belief is simply impossible? Or would they just cling to the impossible and illogical just so as to avoid belief in God? If belief in God is the logical conclusion, then whether it is considered simplistic or not is irrelevant. In any case, I don't believe that it is simplistic to believe that God did it. This belief is the basis from which modern science was born! Also, while there may be answers we may not find in this life, are you sure the question of God is not already an answer? Or are you simply evading the obvious and logical answer?

 

[Agoraphobic]

This will be a long story if I were to go into it. The bible, to me is a book. The Old testament is a narrative of Jewish history and folklore, and the New Testament is the life of a person named Jesus. I will give a description of my view of Jesus. The person who was Jesus was likely to be a rebel in that Roman held area of what is now Jerusalem. He was an anti-establishment spokesman, raised anti-Roman sentiments and encouraged fellow Jews not to pay taxes to the tax-collectors which caused the Romans to get the local Jewish church leaders to make him an outcast, and eventually persecuted him. Anti Roman sentiment grew and this Jesus person was martyred by his followers, known as Christians, who were growing more and more anti-establishment and rebellious. After time, stories about this Jesus changed and was romanticised to make him more and more "divine" (stories of miracles, virgin-birth and so on.) His story evolved into what it is today, based on earlier divine stories of Horus (an Egyptian deity). In order to put a stop to this festering social problem, the Roman Caesar (Constantin?) decided that it would be a good idea to politically accept Christianity as a state-endorsed religion, this will put an end to the rebellion. This is what I think of the Bible. I admit though, it is a fantastic story. But Jesus (if he existed, was a man, not a God.) You wish to take it as the Book of Truth, it is your choice.

Cheers!

I think you are mistaken. While the Bible is not a history book per se, it touches on history as well. You said the Bible contains nothing factual, are you sure? What do you mean by that? There are a lot of propositional statements in the Bible, so these are truth claims. So how can you conclude that the Bible does not make any truth claims?

You said you go by that which is logical, as if to imply that those who believe throw logic out of the window. Again this is far from the truth. All logic is God's logic. The one who goes with logic will have to account for the existence of logic, and this logically points to God. How can evolution, supposedly a mindless, undirected, natural process give rise to laws of logic?

Are you sure the Biblical Jesus did not exist? Sure there are some "scholars" who say he did not, but even Bart Ehrman has written a book to establish the fact that Jesus existed. And Bart Ehrman is no friend of Christianity. To deny the historical Jesus is again irrational. History is divided into BC and AD because Jesus existed. It takes much more faith to deny His existence than to accept that He existed. Again if you are truly on the side of logic you would not choose the side of denial. That's illogical.

 

[Frodo]

This will be a long story if I were to go into it. The bible, to me is a book. The Old testament is a narrative of Jewish history and folklore, and the New Testament is the life of a person named Jesus. I will give a description of my view of Jesus. The person who was Jesus was likely to be a rebel in that Roman held area of what is now Jerusalem. He was an anti-establishment spokesman, raised anti-Roman sentiments and encouraged fellow Jews not to pay taxes to the tax-collectors which caused the Romans to get the local Jewish church leaders to make him an outcast, and eventually persecuted him. Anti Roman sentiment grew and this Jesus person was martyred by his followers, known as Christians, who were growing more and more anti-establishment and rebellious. After time, stories about this Jesus changed and was romanticised to make him more and more "divine" (stories of miracles, virgin-birth and so on.) His story evolved into what it is today, based on earlier divine stories of Horus (an Egyptian deity). In order to put a stop to this festering social problem, the Roman Caesar (Constantin?) decided that it would be a good idea to politically accept Christianity as a state-endorsed religion, this will put an end to the rebellion. This is what I think of the Bible. I admit though, it is a fantastic story. But Jesus (if he existed, was a man, not a God.) You wish to take it as the Book of Truth, it is your choice.

Cheers!

Like you said, the story you have above is a COOL STORY BRO!:p Having a CSB is one thing, is there credible evidence to substantiate your story?

Have you ever wondered why people would come up with even more fantastic ideas than to simply accept the Bible narrative as it is? Again this shows the Bible true, for it says people love the darkness more than light.

 

[Agoraphobic]

It can be simple, if one wants it to be, or it can be more complex, if one questions further. To accept the God as the ultimate being is to make it simple, and on your basis, it is acceptable, but it does not bring comfort nor solutions to our lives. We strive to reduce hardships, cure diseases, understand weather and other physical issues around us - some people may look to their "gods" to overcome these, but others will pursue further knowledge and understanding and take actions on their own. For instance, it will be simple to say, god created Adam from dust, and Eve from Adam, and let it be so, but if one questions further a host of other unexplained issues can be raised. So, even if God exists, and created all around us, we're still on our own, and need to fend for ourselves. For these reasons and many others, I am unable to accept the biblical god, or the stories in it as factual. It is a book of wisdom, good triumph over evil, and in its own way, social behaviour and held in high esteem by society, but to me, it is more symbolic than factual.

Cheers!

Creationists regard the dog and wolf as belonging to the same kind, so there is no dispute here. And here is where irrationality comes in, how can simple gives rise to complex information? Not to mention that even the so-called simple is anything but simple! We can now looked into the simplest of cell and see how complex it is! Just when would evolutionist come to terms that their belief is simply impossible? Or would they just cling to the impossible and illogical just so as to avoid belief in God? If belief in God is the logical conclusion, then whether it is considered simplistic or not is irrelevant. In any case, I don't believe that it is simplistic to believe that God did it. This belief is the basis from which modern science was born! Also, while there may be answers we may not find in this life, are you sure the question of God is not already an answer? Or are you simply evading the obvious and logical answer?

 

[Agoraphobic]

By the same argument, it is not proven that the story of Jesus is true - it is till today, a story. People have believed it because they want to believe. They want good to prevail over evil. That their king, born in poverty and hardship is superior to the earthly kings born to riches and luxury. That compassionate and love wins over brutality and hardened policies. It is a nice story with a message that brings solace, comfort to us, that is the reason is desired, whether it is true or not, does not really matter. And because it is embraced by so many, people in position to exploit others, use it to their political advantage. And it has evolved over the centuries and millenium to be the world's best organized religion. Other cultures outside of the middle-east where it originated have even taken it as their way-of-life, influenced their nation's constituitions and laws, matrimonial and educational customs. Overall it's done more good than harm. Just that - it is not true.

Cheers!

Like you said, the story you have above is a COOL STORY BRO!:p Having a CSB is one thing, is there credible evidence to substantiate your story?

Have you ever wondered why people would come up with even more fantastic ideas than to simply accept the Bible narrative as it is? Again this shows the Bible true, for it says people love the darkness more than light.

 

[Frodo]

It can be simple, if one wants it to be, or it can be more complex, if one questions further. To accept the God as the ultimate being is to make it simple, and on your basis, it is acceptable, but it does not bring comfort nor solutions to our lives. We strive to reduce hardships, cure diseases, understand weather and other physical issues around us - some people may look to their "gods" to overcome these, but others will pursue further knowledge and understanding and take actions on their own. For instance, it will be simple to say, god created Adam from dust, and Eve from Adam, and let it be so, but if one questions further a host of other unexplained issues can be raised. So, even if God exists, and created all around us, we're still on our own, and need to fend for ourselves. For these reasons and many others, I am unable to accept the biblical god, or the stories in it as factual. It is a book of wisdom, good triumph over evil, and in its own way, social behaviour and held in high esteem by society, but to me, it is more symbolic than factual.

Cheers!

The issue is not what you think of God, whether He is simple answer or complex answer. The question is really, Does God Exist? This is the question that must be answered by each living person. If there is no God, nothing really matters. If there is a God, then there are huge implications for it. And the Bible wants us to depend on God, not fend for ourselves. We are not created to be independent of God.

 

[Frodo]

By the same argument, it is not proven that the story of Jesus is true - it is till today, a story. People have believed it because they want to believe. They want good to prevail over evil. That their king, born in poverty and hardship is superior to the earthly kings born to riches and luxury. That compassionate and love wins over brutality and hardened policies. It is a nice story with a message that brings solace, comfort to us, that is the reason is desired, whether it is true or not, does not really matter. And because it is embraced by so many, people in position to exploit others, use it to their political advantage. And it has evolved over the centuries and millenium to be the world's best organized religion. Other cultures outside of the middle-east where it originated have even taken it as their way-of-life, influenced their nation's constituitions and laws, matrimonial and educational customs. Overall it's done more good than harm. Just that - it is not true.

Cheers!

It seems to be that you may just be conjuring up arbitrary and ad hoc novel ideas that are more fantastic as it goes, just to prop up the claim that the Biblical Jesus did not exist! One question for you, why would the early Christians choose to die for a fake make-belief story? Or are you suggesting that ALL were deceived right from the start? That's even more unbelievable and illogical! I wonder if you have ever read the Bible, or the NT writings, did the writers put themselves as someone engaging in wishful thinking? And that the truth does not matter at all? An honest reading of the Bible will not lend itself to such a conclusion.

 

[Agoraphobic]

The truth is that - we really do not know, and hence the debates on this existence. And even if this god exists, how do we know whether it cares or bothers about us? The concept of god is man made, and the biblical version happens to be the most ideal one, or at least more acceptable to our times than the Nordic, Greek, or Hindu versions. They are all man made to human perceptions of that era. It is not my thought, but that of our species, at least the thinking ones.

Cheers!

The issue is not what you think of God, whether He is simple answer or complex answer. The question is really, Does God Exist? This is the question that must be answered by each living person. If there is no God, nothing really matters. If there is a God, then there are huge implications for it. And the Bible wants us to depend on God, not fend for ourselves. We are not created to be independent of God.