home
RSS
January 27th, 2014
12:40 PM ET

Angry birds! Pope's peace doves attacked

By Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) Talk about your angry birds.

A crow and a seagull attacked two white doves released by children standing next to Pope Francis on Sunday at St. Peter's Square. The birds of prey swooped down after the "peace" doves flew from the open window in the Apostolic Palace.

One dove broke free from the gull, after losing a few feathers in the fray. A crow pecked the other before both doves escaped and flew away. Their ultimate fate is unknown.

Thankfully, the Pope and children had walked away before the fly-by birding.

Doves as Judeo-Christian symbols of peace date back to biblical times. In the Book of Genesis, a dove returns to the ark-maker Noah with an olive branch, letting him know that the flood had receded.

In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit descends "like a dove" on Jesus after his baptism, according to the Gospel of Matthew. Centuries of Christian art thereafter have use doves to symbolize the third member of the Holy Trinity, along with God and Jesus.

Just before releasing the doves, the Pope had offered prayers for Ukraine, the site of pitched civil strife, and some say the dove-attack portends poorly for Eastern European nation.

Others took a more humorous approach.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Catholic Church • Pope Francis

soundoff (986 Responses)
  1. JW

    Regardless of what that might mean or not, all false religion will soon suffer destruction at the hands of there political "lovers", that once used to protect the "harlot". It will be a judgment coming from the true God. ( Revelation chapter 18, 19).

    January 27, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
    • Petra

      And you are sure your own religion is the true religion...why? Oh, who cares. Follow your religion and let people follow theirs.

      January 27, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
      • Austin

        that is un biblical. if you agree to let people follow theirs, then you agree that Jesus Christ is the savior of all the world.

        no other religion claims that. it also claims the "great commission"

        January 27, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • Sheesh

          "no other religion claims that"

          So what? Why does that somehow automatically make yours right? They make their own claims that yours doesn't.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • Petra

          Letting people worship as they wish is unbiblical.
          As I already posted, let people worship as they wish. Get awfully tired of people who worship the Bible instead of God.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
      • JW

        Yes I do think I'm in the true religion. In order for you and others to see where there standing, compare the message of Christ with what religions are doing and have been doing and see if their practicing what Christ taught?

        But independent of each persons religion it's part of me as a Christian to respect each persons decision regarding religion. Though history shows that the ones that called "Christian" had a hard time accepting other ideas... Some of those we're even killed.

        January 27, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • Madtown

          I do think I'm in the true religion
          ---–
          That's for mainly 1 reason: it was accessible to you as you've grown, and in different parts of your life. What if you'd never heard of it, and happened to follow a different religion? Yes, you'd then think that other religion was the "true" religion.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • JB

          Are you practicing what Jesus taught, or what Paul taught? They often conflict.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • Madtown

          What if you've never heard of Jesus or Paul? If that's the case, then their teachings are irrelevant to you.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
    • CommonSensed

      Let it go. Birds attack birds – raptors attack prey. Relax.

      January 27, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • Charm Quark

        We are at the top of the food chain, we devour almost every other advanced life system on the earth, bon appet!t.

        January 27, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • CommonSensed

          Yum!

          January 27, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
  2. JW

    Regardless of what that might mean or not, all false religion will soon suffer destruction at the hands of there political "lovers", that once used to protect the "harlot". It will be a judgment coming from the true God. ( Revelation chapter 18, 19)

    January 27, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
    • G to the T

      It is no more a "portent" than Revelation is a prophecy... i.e. not at all...

      January 27, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
      • JW

        If you are an atheist I can understand your point of view.

        January 27, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • G to the T

          Ever read the Apacolypse of Peter? A much better read in my opinion and was a major contendor to be the last book of the bible before the "pro-john" group won out.

          I don't believe what I believe because I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist because of what I've learned about belief.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
    • igaftr

      JW
      I have found over 400 "true" gods...yours is just as "true" as they are.

      January 27, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
      • JW

        The true God is the Creater of of everything, the other gods are not Creater of nothing... Therefore weak!

        January 27, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • Sheesh

          The other religions say that about your god. Why should we believe you?

          January 27, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • igaftr

          JW
          ALL gods were made by men. There is a great deal of evidence showing this, where there is NO evidence that any god made men.
          So how weak are ALL gods, since it looks like ALL gods only exist in mens imaginations.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • G to the T

          And you believe he's the true god and creator of everything why? Because he told you he was?

          What if Yahweh's ignorant of a higher existence that caused him? You are taking his word on faith. That's fine, just don't try to confuse it with "facts".

          January 27, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
    • Sheesh

      You know other religions make predictions about how their religion is eventually going to straighten everything out too, right?

      January 27, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
    • Lawrence of Arabia

      JW,
      How do you exposite Revelation 20:15?

      January 27, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
      • JW

        What is your idea of hell? Who controls hell?

        January 27, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          God, of course. God created hell originally as the final abode of fallen angels, but Revelation 20:15 assures us that man will go there if he dies unsaved.

          Matthew 25:41-46 – Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels” “… These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

          On the other hand, there is no Biblical evidence for annihilationism.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • JW

          God crated hell... So does that mean that God works hand on hand with satan?

          January 27, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • skarphace

          According to the Bible, God made everything. God made Hell. God controls everything. God controls Hell.

          According to the Bible, Ii you are a very good person and follow the tenants of the Bible but die while not believing that Jesus Christ is Lord, you are sent to Hell by God and will be tortured in the extreme for eternity with no hope for salvation. If you are a horrible person and die on the electric chair but die believing that Jesus is Lord, then you are sent to Heaven by God and will be rewarded in the extreme for eternity with no worry about ever being responsible for all the horrible things you did while on Earth.

          If this is your idea of God, then I am sorry, but it is not a being that I would ever choose to worship.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • skarphace

          JW, there are only two possibilities. Either God made Satan and therefore controls Satan or Satan is a god unto himself, but is a lesser god who would be defeated if God were ever to oppose him. Either way, it is God who chooses to send someone to Hell, and it is for personal reasons (they did not bow down and worship Me!), not because the person was good or bad while on Earth.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          "God crated hell... So does that mean that God works hand on hand with satan?"
          ------
          I don't follow your meaning? Do you mean to say that Satan has some authority in Hell? Or authority over Hell? No, he will be incarcerated with the rest of fallen angels and unsaved humanity on that day of judgment in Revelation 20 – the Great White Throne Judgment.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • JW

          On Matt 25:46 you must know that the "eternal punishment" that that translation puts.. On the Greek that part literally means ". Lit., “lopping off; pruning.” The meaning of "eternal punishment doesn't mean a "fiery place"

          January 27, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Matthew 25:46 – "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

          Punishment in hell is defined by the word aionios, which is the word “eternal” or “everlasting.” There are people who would like to redefine that word aionios and say, "Well, it doesn't really mean forever." But if you do that with hell, you've just done it with heaven, because the same word is used to describe both. If there is not an everlasting hell, then there is not an everlasting heaven. And I'll go one beyond that. The same word is used to describe God. And so if there is not an everlasting hell, then there is not an everlasting heaven, nor is there an everlasting God. It is clear that God is eternal; and, therefore, that heaven is eternal, and so is hell.

          Daniel 12:2 – Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
          Luke 16:19-31 – parable of rich man and Lazarus – Hell is torment
          Matthew 13:36-43; 47-51 – Jesus gives 2 parables comparing hell to a furnace of fire “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Obviously, hell is torment, not destruction – if it was destruction, then there would be silence after they have been thrown in, but as it is, Jesus gives a description of their torment.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Punishment of the wicked dead is described throughout scripture as:
          1)Eternal fire (Psalm 11:6, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50, Matthew 18:7-9, Matthew 25:41, Jude 7)
          Isaiah 30:30,33 – Isaiah speaks of Topheth in the valley of Hinnom, where before it became Gehenna – the burning trash dump outside Jerusalem – it was the place of pagan worship where people burned alive their own children to their false god, Molech (2 Chronicles 28:3, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Jeremiah 7:31, Jeremiah 19:2-6) and God uses this as an illustration of a place where God will burn alive the unrighteous
          2)Eternal punishment (Isaiah 66:24, Matthew 25:30, 46, Daniel 12:2, John 5:29)
          3)Unquenchable fire (Deuteronomy 32:22, Matthew 3:12, Mark 9:43-49)
          4)Darkness, Blackness (Matthew 8:12, Matthew 22:13, Matthew 25:30, 2 Peter 2:17, Jude 7, Jude 13)
          5)Disgrace and everlasting shame and contempt (Daniel 12:2)
          6)Banishment, Separation (Matthew 8:12, Matthew 22:13, Luke 13:28)
          7)Sorrow and Anger “Weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Luke 13:28, Matthew 8:12, Matthew 13:42,50, Matthew 22:13, Matthew 24:51, Matthew 25:30, Revelation 18:15)
          8)A place where “their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Isaiah 66:24, Mark 9:44-49)
          9)A place of endless “torments” and “flame” (Luke 16:23-28)
          10)Eternal destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10) NOTE: “destruction” means “ruin” and does not involve annihilation, but rather a new state of conscious being which is significantly worse than the first (Revelation 20:14-15) This is described as the absence of God’s presence and glory (Matthew 8:12, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 22:13, Matthew 25:30, Luke 16:24-26)
          11)A place of everlasting torment with “fire and brimstone” where “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” (Revelation 14:9-11)
          12)Lake of fire and brimstone where the wicked are tormented day and night forever and ever (Revelation 20:10)

          January 27, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
        • JW

          Jews didn't believe in life after death. Therefore they would of never understood "Sheol, hades, Gehenna" as a place of torment. Death was the end of everything, just like it was to Adam.."you are dust to the dust you will return"!

          January 27, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          JW,
          One of the reasons that Jesus came was to correct Jewish thinking, and to undo the corrupt religion that they had created. Over and over again Jesus would confront them with "Have you not read?" The Jews were hooked on tradition, and were unlearned in the word of God. And it is from Jesus that we get the most teaching about hell in the Bible.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
      • radar8

        It's a fairy tale, plain and simple. What better way to gain power and control the populace. "Hey there, I am gods representative on earth. You must worship that god in the way that I tell you."
        The catholic church went farther than most when it wanted to find out about secrets...... they invented the confessional.

        "Confess your sins to us or you'll burn in hell (or well just torture you to death, which works as well)".

        Siners dont burn in hell and the righteous don't go to heaven. heaven and hell were invented by man to control other men. It's the original carrot and stick. "Do as I say and you get the carrot (heaven). Otherwise you'll get the stick (hell).

        January 27, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
      • JW

        Those in hell are unconscious and so cannot feel pain. “There is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol.”—⁠Ecclesiastes 9:10.

        Good people go to hell. The faithful men Jacob and Job expected to go there.—Genesis 37:35; Job 14:13.
        Death, not torment in a fiery hell, is the penalty for sin. “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”—⁠Romans 6:7.

        Eternal torment would violate God’s justice. (Deuteronomy 32:4) When the first man, Adam, sinned, God told him that his punishment would simply be to pass out of existence: “Dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19) God would have been lying if he were actually sending Adam to a fiery hell.

        God does not even contemplate eternal torment. The idea that he would punish people in hellfire is contrary to the Bible’s teaching that “God is love.”—⁠1 John 4:8; Jeremiah 7:31.

        January 27, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          So, how do you exposite Revelation 20:15?

          January 27, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • JW

          That txt means that like satan the wicked will be destroyed forever without having the possibility of living again.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Lawrence
          Martin Luther, the Great Protestant Reformer himself, had this to say about the Book of Revelation:
          "First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images...I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

          My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely."

          January 27, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          In order to posit that, you would need specific Biblical proofs that state the "lake of fire" is equivalent to annihilation of both body and soul.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Doc,
          So? I'm familiar with most everything the man wrote. Some I agree with, some I don't. Luther isn't an inspired writer after all, and no one claims that he ever was.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • JW

          "Jesus came to correct the Jewish tradition"

          You are right, not to introduce the pagan greek view of hell though.

          So what did Jacob and job do to be in Sheol or hades which mean hell?
          Good people go to hell. The faithful men Jacob and Job expected to go there.—Genesis 37:35; Job 14:13.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Both Hades and Sheol are the same thing: “Hades” is the Greek word used in the New Testament, and “Sheol” is the Hebrew word used 65 times in the Old Testament

          In the KJV, the word “Sheol” is translated into “hell” 31 times, it is translated “the grave” 31 times, and 3 times it is translated into “the pit.”

          Sheol must be separated from the idea of the “final hell / lake of fire,” and it must be distinguished from simply “the grave,” meaning “death.”

          Indeed, Sheol / Hades is a form of hell, but since Hades itself will one day be thrown into the lake of fire, (Revelation 20:14) it cannot be the final resting place of the wicked dead. It is instead a place of incarceration where the wicked will await the final day of judgment where God will mead out their final punitive punishment.

          Sheol cannot simply mean “the grave” or “death.” Although our English language has only on word for this, the Hebrews had several, and they had a perfectly good word for simply “the grave,” but it was used very infrequently. The word Sheol however meant more, it certainly includes “the grave,” and yes, it has “death” in its meaning, but it also includes the world of dead men’s spirits.

          Job 26:5-6 – The departed spirits tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. Naked is Sheol before Him, and Abaddon has no covering.

          Isaiah 14:9 – “Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; it arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; it raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Before Christ died on the cross, it was a place divided into two parts. One part was referred to as “Abraham’s Bosom” (Luke 16:22) and was a place of comfort for the godly dead where they awaited Christ’s redeeming work on the cross. (Isaiah 61:1, Psalm 49:15)

          The other part, separated from Abraham’s Bosom by a great chasm, (Luke 16:19-31) exists now and will exist until the day when death and Hades will both be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14). It is the place where the souls of the ungodly dead of all time immediately go to await the final judgment – it is torment, (Luke 16:19-31) but is NOT the final hell…

          January 27, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • G to the T

          ""Jesus came to correct the Jewish tradition"

          Oh! You and LoA are soooo close. Now think it through, Jesus came to correct the jewish tradition and then Paul changed the religion of Jesus into a religion about Jesus. So who is really following Jesus here?

          January 27, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • SPA Knight

          Consider this. If God is the source of life and love, then a life without him would be torment and suffering. That is hell. Where did Christ go during the three days in the tomb? It says in scripture that he decended to the dead, hades, etc. Why? Because prior to Jesus coming to earth (God made flesh), all those that died physically were not saved nor did they have access to the savior's mercy. Therefore, Jesus, offered them salvation as well and the gates were opened. This Hades was not hell but a place where souls were waiting for judgement. After Christ's resurrection, souls are destined to enter heaven, pergatory or hell.

          January 29, 2014 at 11:42 am |
  3. NYVeteran

    Obviously the old crow and gull living at the seaside are 1%-ers of the tea party attacking peaceful doves for their political viewpoints.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
  4. Obamabus

    Next time release falcons

    January 27, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
    • Alias

      +1

      January 27, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
  5. Crows are Odin's Emissaries

    Apparently Odin is more powerful than Jeebus.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
    • igaftr

      Thor is stronger too...Jesus was nailed up...Thor carries a hammer.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Crows also represent the Morrigan, one of the Celtic Goddesses of War.

      January 27, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
  6. skarphace

    Topher, if you really believe that science is a religion and are not merely trolling, then you do not understand science. Speaking about something you don't understand will only serve to display your ignorance on the subject.

    Religion and science are actually opposites. With science, you begin with a hypothesis and actively work to prove that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven or there is no conclusion, it is discarded. To prove a hypothesis, it must both be demostratable and repeatable. That is, you must be able to show the results of the hypothesis under the strict conditions set up by the hypothesis and it must work every time. Only when a hypothesis is proven, which includes rigorous testing by competing scientists, is it accepted as theory. Even then, if new information or new technologies become available which can be used to disprove the theory, the theory is discarded (as was the case with the "Earth is flat" and "The Sun rotates around the Earth" theories, both of which were based on observation but were proven wrong).

    With religion, you start with a claim and actively work to make others believe that such a claim is true regardless of any evidence to the contrary. In other words, you make a claim and then force others to prove that your claim is false. As many of the claims cannot be completely proven false (try proving that God does not exist, for example), these claims are considered true by religious standards. However, this is not scientific proof as such claims are not demonstratable or repeatable. Therefore, they would not be considered valid theories by scientific standards.

    If you do not see the difference, then you do not want to, which is par for the course for many religious people.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
    • Topher

      True, science and religion are different things. Which is why evolution is religion. Science rejects evolution. So if you want to believe in it, fine. But you're entering the realm of religion to do so.

      However, science and the Bible complement each other.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
      • Alias

        Once again Topher proves the he knows nothing about science.
        Good job keep that credibilty were it has always been.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Austin

          if you are scientific, you have to take my testimony, that I have had 30 supernatural visions come true, and enter it into the hypothesis category.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • Alias

          That would depend on how specific those visions were, and how many visions you've had that never happened.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • Austin

          no it would not matter how many did not involve the supernatural.

          only if there is the supernatural involved in some of them.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Barry Christ

          He also continues to commit the Fallacy of Equivocation, despite repeatedly being told about the fallacious claim.

          "The service of worship of God or the supernatural." Yeah, that fits evolution and atheism. Gotta equivocate to another definition to make it even remotely fit, which is like saying bananas are cowardly Asians because they are yellow.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • G to the T

          "That would depend on how specific those visions were, and how many visions you've had that never happened."

          Exactly – how many misses does it take before you call a "hit" a miracle? Statistcally speaking, 3 or more miracles (defined as EXTREMELY improbable events) happen every day in America.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • Austin

          i agree that dreams are subjective. however, reality is not subjective. example, t.ita was at the bookstore. that is not a subjective experience. that was a fact.

          if the fact happened, and the dream had 3 parts to it, all of which were dreamed 3 years ahead of time, that would have to statistically point to a sovereign intelligence, foreknowledge / prophetic element, and with a high degree of probability that it was prophetic, and not all "premonition" but rather supernatural.

          that is what people stand against out of very stubborn hope that God is not real. people have a desire, that God not be real (the God of the bible, because of the threat of seperation/hell)

          January 27, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • Alias

          I've had way more than 30 dreams that I would have sex with my wife, and they have all come true!
          So can i conclude that my religion is validated?

          January 27, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Barry Christ

          Rality is not subjective, but a person's experience of it is. There is no such thing as "objective experience".

          January 27, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • G to the T

          "which were dreamed 3 years ahead of time" – and you had those dreams written down and dated somewhere ahead of time or were you remembering what you thought you had dreamed 3 years earlier.

          I would study more about how the brain actually works before I'd say I "know" something that is completely outside the realm of common experience.

          January 27, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
      • igaftr

        Topher
        Evolution is not rejected by science...that is simply absurd.

        Just because you want to twist your bible to your means does not mean you can do it with science.

        Your statements are just plain silly, and extremely ignorant

        January 27, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • Topher

          igaftr

          "Just because you want to twist your bible to your means does not mean you can do it with science."

          I didn't mention the Bible. Nor does it have anything to do with it. Evolution is not testable, repeatable nor demonstrable. There has never been a demonstration of a change in kinds. It would require an addition of genetic information when we only see losses. And since an animal only has the genetics to reproduce what it already has, it cannot become something else. Ecoli has not become not-ecoli. Fruit flies have only become more fruit flies.

          "Your statements are just plain silly, and extremely ignorant"

          Ad hominem. You lose.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • G to the T

          "has never been a demonstration of a change in kinds."

          And for n'th time I ask – please define a "kind". It isn't a scientific term and until a consistent definition is provided, we cannot hope to provide the evidence you require. Are beetles a kind or are insects?

          January 27, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Topher, You may not mention the bible and you claim to not support creationism, but as there are only two options that I'm aware of – what exactly are you saying is the explanation of species?

          January 27, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Topher
          You're using the "crocoduck" argument again, which is absolute bunk.
          Speciation has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild.
          You need to look up what the term means.
          There is no need for "additional" information.
          DNA is a quadrinary code – our meat machines use it in the same way that computers use a binary code.
          The same amount of raw code will produce different results depending on the way in which it is arranged.
          Changes in code are generally slight and imperceptible, often due to errors in replication. These changes, however, are cu/mulative and exponential, manifesting in on way or another as the generations pass. Sometimes merely dozens of generations (which is still hundreds and hundreds of years in humans and other longer-lived species), sometimes it takes hundreds or thousands of generations.
          But of course, since you believe that the entire planet is only a few thousand years old and that all of humankind is directly descended from 3 breeding pairs of humans 4,000 years ago, you are unable to wrap your head around the time scales involved in the development of organic life.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • igaftr

          "ad hominem. You lose."

          Not at all topher...you lose due to the willful ignorance.

          evolution is testible and verifiable. You clearly do not understand evolution as it pertains to genetics. Evolution is in the DNA, the fossil records, and is solid, verified, science.

          Go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and yell LA LA LA LA so you can't hear the TRUTH of evolution. I feel sorry for your offspring if you home school. They will get a 1st century education in a 21st century world.Tantamount to child abuse.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          Topher
          Not ad hominem according to Thomas Jefferson...
          Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them, and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
          So how are you going to square your delusional circle when life is discovered on another world? The apologists will find a way no doubt and you will just fall in line like a good sheep.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • Topher

          I wish this conversation wasn't going on in 3 places on this page ... anyway ...

          G to the T

          "And for n'th time I ask – please define a "kind". It isn't a scientific term and until a consistent definition is provided, we cannot hope to provide the evidence you require. Are beetles a kind or are insects?"

          There's no perfect designation with today's definitions, but the closest is "family".

          If you want a definition, find it on biology-online.org

          January 27, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • Topher

          In Santa we trust

          "You may not mention the bible and you claim to not support creationism, but as there are only two options that I'm aware of – what exactly are you saying is the explanation of species?"

          Don't understand your question. But I do want to point out I DO support creationism, just not it being taught in public schools.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • Topher

          Charm

          "So how are you going to square your delusional circle when life is discovered on another world? The apologists will find a way no doubt and you will just fall in line like a good sheep."

          Finding life on another world would not disprove the Bible. However, until there they do find something, there's no reason to believe there is any.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher
          " until there they do find something, there's no reason to believe there is any."

          Same for your god topher...hoist on your own petard.

          On the other hand, since we have found many planets in the goldilocks zone where liquid water is possible, AND the four elements we find that are required for life are the 4 most common elements on the planet AND you calculate that just in our galaxy alone there are 2 billion planets that are in the goldilocks zone, and the propencity for life to find a way to flourish...add in these and some other factors, and you see the probability that life exists elsewhere is not absolute, but is exceptionally likely.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • igaftr

          correction
          " AND the four elements we find that are required for life are the 4 most common elements on the planet"

          not just the planet, but the universe...

          January 27, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • G to the T

          Topher – "There's no perfect designation with today's definitions, but the closest is "family"."

          So you have no issue with evolution at the species or genus levels then? That's a pretty broad goal post you're setting there. OK – now that I've got work with – I'll see what I can find for you. The question is, will you read it with a open mind when I do?

          January 27, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
      • anti-fred

        Because you say so! Right Topher?

        January 27, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • Charm Quark

        Topher
        I guess the question for you would be how long would you want to home school your child and what on earth could you and your wife possibly teach him/her to cope with the modern world that the rest of us live in?

        January 27, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        If science has rejected evolution, a lot of scientists have not gotten the memo. Having majored in geology at a university, in the Bible belt no less, evolution is still widely taught. So are all these professors just dumb or is it a conspiracy?

        January 27, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • Austin

          the attack is a conspiracy and it does not so much involve science, as the lack of education about the law of sin. if we did evolve, through creaton, then God did not tell us so, therefore it is not the focal point of truth.

          the conspiracy, is taking creation and sin out of education. this is criminal spiritual murder. .

          January 27, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • G to the T

          "the attack is a conspiracy and it does not so much involve science, as the lack of education about the law of sin."

          Ah, a "conspiracy". In that case I guess I (and every reputable scientist I've ever heard of) are a part of it. So you think that jewish, muslim, buddhist, hindu, sihk, and/or other children should be taught christian theology in public school? And not only that, we should be teaching as "the Truth?

          Good luck with that!

          January 27, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          Religious teachings were taken out of public education becauseone roup of theists didn't want another group of theists teaching there kids the wrong theism.

          But I would agree with you that the whole debating evolution vs. religion is a waste of time. I know plenty of Christians who are ok with evolution. Meaning to to debate evolution is to debate other Christians.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
      • Which God?

        Austin, I'll take you testimony, and dump it in the garbage heap. Shear BS.

        January 27, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
      • radar8

        Are you really this ignorant or just trolling? Religion is as true as cinderella, and Alice in Wonderland. Evcery religion thinks that they are the true religion. The fact is that all religions are false. They were all invented by man to explain and control and it worked.

        Even today, people will believe with no proof. To stop people from searchinig for the truth, the religions state that you MUST believe. So much for proof.

        January 27, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
    • Austin

      because those who are truly spiritual are born again, if you are not born again, you lack a dimension of reality, the dimension that is connected to God and eternal life.

      you are still eternal, but the true life is only obtained through the blood of Christ. He erased the death that came through Adam.

      the sad part, is sin that leads to death.

      January 27, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
      • G to the T

        I was born again. I experienced this "reality" you speak of. And then I realized how very human a book a bible is. Then I studied the books of other relgions, they were made by men too. Everywhere I've looked (and believe me, I've looked) that "reality" you speak of has as much substance as any of theirs.

        You are adding a level of complexity to the universe that isn't required. Your "reality" is a pipe-dream.

        January 27, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Austin

          how did you realize that? how can you be sure you are not rationalizing or even hoping?

          January 27, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • G to the T

          How can you? We can only ever go by our personal experiences. This is where my honest investigations have taken me. How do you know you aren't being fooled by Satan and the Bible is a test to see who can see through it?

          January 27, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
      • WhyMe

        your god connection is shorting out your connection to the other dimensions.

        January 27, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
  7. Doves are nothing more than a pigeon

    And a pigeon is just a rat with wings.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
    • ME II

      ... and we're just [mostly] hairless apes. What your point?

      January 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
    • igaftr

      Not really...all pigeons are doves....mostly Rock doves. But not all doves are pigeons.

      January 27, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
    • Science Works

      And birds evolved from dinosaurs.

      January 27, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
  8. sly

    Excellant news! Evolution continues to shine, and the fittest will survive.

    That's how we all got this far folks. These birds are just illustrating what 95% of the National Academy of Scientists have proven.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
    • ME II

      Um, caging and transporting doves to some place that is the habitat of their natural predator doesn't equate to natural selection.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
  9. Charn Quark

    Topher
    Sorry about your loss, did not see your post before my post, disregard no matter how accurate.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
  10. Saraswati

    This is too bad, but we really shouldn't be capturing animals simply for the purpose of setting them free to make a human point. Without knowing more, perhaps these were being used educationally in a school program. I hope there was more of a point that just this silly symbollic exercise.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
    • Science Works

      The crow in the picture is not symbolic to them – the believe the crap !

      January 27, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
  11. chris

    the amazing thing here is that this has happened many times before and every time the media acts like this is a generational event. i suggest next time the vatican prepare the doves with dynamite vests so they explode when attacked by seagulls...that would be really rich in symbolism.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
    • doobzz

      Perhaps they could dress some doves in Swiss Guard uniforms and put them in perches by the windows too.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
    • OTOH

      The Vatican knew that this nasty outcome would occur, but did it anyway? Hmmmm, sounds like something that 'someone' else whom they worship and revere would do!

      January 27, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
  12. Alias

    Or we could see this as proof that predators live in the Vatican.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
  13. ME II

    Don't mean to interrupt important religious news, but should Texas schools be allowed to teach religion as science?

    http://ncse.com/news/2014/01/creationism-texas-charter-schools-0015318

    January 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
    • Alias

      No school should teach any religion as science.
      Religion belongs in religion classes, and science in science classes. How is that even a question?

      January 27, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
      • ME II

        Oh, I agree, but apparently some Texas schools don't.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • Alias

          I never thought I would see this as a good thing, but kids don't usually listen to what their teachers tell them.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
    • Lawrence of Arabia

      Aren't they already doing that? I mean secularism is a religion. Evolution is a religion. Humanism is a religion.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        RELIGION:
        the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

        SECULARISM:
        a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations

        HUMANISM:
        an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

        So how exactly is the explicit rejection of religion a religion in and of itself?
        Do you believe that someone who is apolitical is Democrat or Republican?

        And the scientific theory of evolution is no more a religion than the theory of relativity.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          One system teaches that there is no God. The other system teaches that there is a God. And my children (if I had any) would have no part of any system that teaches that there is no God. And that is the very basis for secular humanism and evolution – Evolution being the evangelical arm of secular humanism...

          January 27, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Do you use a three pointed model for your tin foil hat, or do you prefer the traditional beanie style?

          I'm teaching my kid about all types of gods and religions. I've a pretty exhaustive library of religious texts including various Bibles, B'hai texts, Buddhist doctrines, Mormon books, stuff about Taoism, Islam, ancient Roman, Greek, Egyption, Babylonian religions etc.

          But let me guess – you would rather that kids get taught YOUR religion and no others (except in the context of showing how they're wrong/evil/heretical).

          January 27, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          So with your bitter ad hominem you're showing what... That you're the better man?

          "you would rather that kids get taught YOUR religion and no others (except in the context of showing how they're wrong/evil/heretical)."
          -------
          Actually, yeah. And if you have read the Bible, then studied the history of mankind through the ages and seen specific prophecy fulfillment, you'd easily recognize that all those other claimants to truth were false.

          Prophecy fulfillment in the form of the prediction and ellimination of the Edomites, proved true with the discovery of Petra.
          In the form of specific predictions of how the land city of Tyre would be destroyed by successive attacks, and then it's rubble being thrown into the sea. Fulfillment seen when Alexander the Great threw that rubble into the sea to make a causeway to the Island Fortress of Tyre... And many, many more...

          Truth by its very nature is divisive. And that's fine, I'd rather be divided by truth, than united in error.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          And again on your ad hominem... Atheists are always saying that they can be moral without God. Is that an example of morality without God? I hope that you don't teach your children to insult others like that.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Mormons say that they've got plenty of specific prophecies that have been fulfilled – they can show you the evidence.
          Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that their specific prophecies have also come true.
          Islam has a list too, just like almost every other religion that has ever existed.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Doc,
          And then you get Joseph Smith saying that the moon is made of green cheese. And that the Koran says that Christians believe in the Father-Mother-Son...

          January 27, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And Christians with 7 headed, ten horned, bear pawed, amphibious monsters, etc.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • radar8

          Hey Lawrence. Come around my house trying to sell your hocus pocus and I'll make sure that you get to see your god, in person. Your religion is nothing more than control. Good cop, bad cop. The bible may be a well written story, but it's a story (actually, many, many stories). They're fun nto read and study, but at the end of the day, they are fiction.

          If you like being controlled by other men, enjoy your religious ignorance. Those in control appreciate people like you.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • G to the T

          LoA: "One system teaches that there is no God." No. Secularism is NEUTRAL to the existence of god. Secular government is best bet to protect ALL of our religious liberties. Not just those that happen to be in the majority.

          January 28, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
      • adrifter

        I get so tired of reading in these comments that atheism is a religion. It is absence of religion. And to say evolution is a religion is ridiculous. It is a scientific theory based on observation and study of the natural work. I always find it funny that people who presumably are religious insult atheism and evolution by calling them religions.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • Topher

          adrifter

          "I get so tired of reading in these comments that atheism is a religion. It is absence of religion."

          It's also a belief system with arguably no evidence, which is what you want to hit the Christians for.

          "And to say evolution is a religion is ridiculous."

          Science rejects it and when you leave the realm of science, you enter the realm of religion.

          "It is a scientific theory based on observation and study of the natural work. I always find it funny that people who presumably are religious insult atheism and evolution by calling them religions."

          There is NO observation of evolution. Never. None.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • Charn Quark

          Topher
          You do not see the arrogance of your position that what you believe is the only truth, you continue to refute the knowledge of the world by twisting it to your position, you are a sham.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Evidence for evolution appears in the fossil record, vestigial features, study of ebryonic development, biogeography, DNA sequencing, examining pseudogenes, study of endogenous retroviruses, labratory direct examination of natural selection in action in E-Coli bacteria, lactose intolerance in humans, the peppered moth's colour change in reaction to industrial pollution, radiotrophic fungi at Chernobyl all add to the modern evolutionary synthesis.
          We have directly observes speciation in Blackcap birds, fruit flies, mosquitos, mice, Shortfin molly fish.
          If you would like to see exactly how the improbable can happen, you can use the computer simulation of life's development called Avida.

          The principles of evolutionary biology are applied on a daily basis by countless people in disparate fields.
          Without a firm understanding of evolution, modern agriculture would be impossible.
          Pharmaceutical biochemistry would be non-existent, reducing our overall health and life expectancy.

          Computer programmers use a principle called "Evolutionary Computing / Genetic Algorithms". This engineering technique is routinely used in aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, systems engineering and a host of other fields.

          Darwin's 5 laws are confirmed and used in practical applications every single day by people all over the world.

          Since Darwin first posited his theory, evolutionary scientists have tried to lessen the conflict between evolution and religion.
          They worry that the public association of evolution with atheism will hurt evolutionary biology, perhaps impeding its funding or acceptance.
          The great majority see no conflict between religion and evolution, not because they occupy different, noncompeting magisteria, but because they see religion as a natural product of human evolution.
          Sociobiological evolution is the means to understanding religion, whereas religion as a "way of knowing" has nothing to teach us about evolution.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • Topher

          Doc Vestibule

          "Evidence for evolution appears in the fossil record,"

          No. A fossil only proves something died. And you can't prove that thing was an ancestor of anything else since you can't prove it had offspring.

          You also have a problem with the "geologic column."

          “Eighty- to eighty-five percent of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order. It becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.” — Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist, “The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column.”

          "vestigial features, "

          Like whale legs? No such thing. It all has a use, thus is not vestigial.

          "study of ebryonic development,"

          Biogenetic law disproven in 1875

          "labratory direct examination of natural selection in action in E-Coli bacteria,"

          Natural selection isn't evolution. The e-coli only became more e-coli.

          "lactose intolerance in humans,"

          Takes a presupposition.

          "the peppered moth's colour change in reaction to industrial pollution,"

          Again, natural selection, not evolution.

          "If you would like to see exactly how the improbable can happen, you can use the computer simulation of life's development called Avida."

          I don't care about a computer graphic. This is like when someone told me we've observed star formation. I asked for the evidence and he said, "well, we've got computer models." That's not evidence.

          "Without a firm understanding of evolution, modern agriculture would be impossible."

          Interesting. How? I'm very much into agriculture. If this is true, why haven't we grown much bigger hogs or cattle? Could have solved the world's hunger issues.

          "Pharmaceutical biochemistry would be non-existent, reducing our overall health and life expectancy."

          You don't need evolution for medicine.

          "Computer programmers use a principle called "Evolutionary Computing / Genetic Algorithms". This engineering technique is routinely used in aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, systems engineering and a host of other fields."

          Observational science does not require evolution.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Topher, I have this image of you with your fingers in your ears saying "I can't hear you".

          January 27, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          "Science rejects it and when you leave the realm of science, you enter the realm of religion."

          Science does not reject evolution, scientist overwhelmingly accept evolution. Where do you get these ideas?

          "There is NO observation of evolution. Never. None."

          Lenski's long term experiment, ring species,
          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

          January 27, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          "You also have a problem with the "geologic column."

          “Eighty- to eighty-five percent of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order. It becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.” — Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist, “The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column.”"

          I don't know where you are dredging up these guote-mining examples, but the "geologic column" is an abstract of all geologic periods that may have been captured by sedimentation. Each specific location will obviously go through it's own history of sedimentation and erosion cause some periods to be recorded and some not.

          This is an incredibly weak argument against an old Earth/Universe.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • Topher

          Tiny changes in beak size is your evidence? Dude, the finches are still finches. Those beaks have been observed to grow and shrink depending on food supply. That's natural selection, not evolution. Genes are being selected as needed. They aren't becoming something else.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          John Woodmorappe (real name: Jan Paczkis) is infamous for scouring hundreds of scientific references to find quotations that he believes dispute the accuracy of radiometric dating and geological data. However, when his quotations and references are viewed in context, they usually fail to support his claims and often refute them.

          He is a leading rabble rouser for "Answers In Genesis" and the "Insti/tute for Creation Research" – organizations that admit their goal isn't to teach what think is fact. They want to defeat scientific materialism and what they think is its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. They push endlessly about Intelligent Design "theory" in order to separate science from its allegiance to "atheistic naturalism".
          In other words, they fear that teachign FACTS to children will drive them away from religion.

          "disproven in 1875" – I take it you're once again hauling out the old images of embryonic development. Guess what? Medical imaging technology has advanced in the last 150 years! As a science, embryology is NOT disproven.There is more information than ever before.

          Natural selection is one of the 5 laws of Darwinian evolution. That you admit it occurs shows that you admit you're backed into a corner when it comes to the theory. This is why Creationists have had to resort to the "micro/macro" evolution argument.
          But that is a load of hoakum. It's like calling a raindrop "micro moisture" and an ocean "macro moisture". Matters of degree, not principle.

          Modern agriculture would be impossible becuase our understanding of evolution has indeed allowed us to develop crops that give greater yields, animals with more desireable traits from our perspective (IE: chickens with larger breasts), and most especially when it comes to pest control and the ways in which insects EVOLVE to adapt to current pesticides.

          Pharmaceutical bio-chemistry is predicated on a solid understanding of evolutionary biology. Drug development would grind to a halt if darwin's 5 laws were tossed out the window.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,

          You didn't finish your citation:

          "Geologist Dr John Woodmorappe, "The essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column", CRSQ, vol. 18, June 1981, pp. 46-71 "

          CRSQ is the Creation Research Society Quarterly and it specifically states

          "2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds."
          (http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm)

          This is a classic example of stated your results and then finding data to back it up, which is not science, or at best bad science.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          The finch example is one example of speciation which is evolution.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          Doc said, "study of ebryonic development,"

          "Biogenetic law disproven in 1875"

          Embryology is not "Biogenetic Law" or recapitulation.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
      • ME II

        @Lawrecne of Arabia,
        Just like Behe's definition of science in the Kitzmiller trial, your definition of religion encompasses so many things that it is practically meaningless.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        Explain how evolution is a religion.

        January 27, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
      • The Pope

        Consider the source. This is someone who says that Catholics are not christians.

        January 27, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
    • Topher

      Allowed to? Yes. Should they? Probably not.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
      • Alias

        If they are teaching Islam to the students, would that 'probably not' change to a decisive 'NO'?

        January 27, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • Topher

          Meh. Since I don't want Christianity taught in public schools, I don't really want any religion taught in schools. Including evolution.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And while we're at it, let's stop teaching the religion of Thermodynamicism.
          Based on how much they've written about it and go on and on about how "fundamental" it is to their belief system, physicists have obviously made a religion of it.
          But we all know that thermodynamics is a theory in crisis.
          Science rejects the mathematical postulates becuase thermodynamics isn't testable or repeatable. No scientist has ever made an entropy in the lab, therefore it is nothing more than subjective belief.
          And don't get me started about Gavitationalism! "weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force" – blah blah blah. We all know the guiding force that keeps everything on Earth from flying away and His name is Jesus.
          Schools should give equal time to alternative theories, like Intelligent Falling. Teach the controversy!

          January 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Topher,

          Religon definition, from the OED:

          the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

          Secondary definitions:

          "a particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions"

          "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
          consumerism is the new religion"

          Note that #3 is not relevant as it refers to a subjective relationsip to any item or area of interest, from shoes to french literature to frogs or baseball. While one might have a "religious" attachment to an object or theory, it is notinitself a religion unless it meets the first two definitions.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher
          Evolution is NOT religion...that is just false.
          Evolution is FACT..deal with it. It is called a theory but since the OVERWHELMING evidence and verifiable data confirms it DAILY, and there are industries based on the FACT of evolution, your opinion that it is a religion shows how ignorant you willfully are.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • Topher

          igaftr

          "Evolution is NOT religion...that is just false."

          This statement is false.

          "Evolution is FACT..deal with it."

          Nope.

          "It is called a theory but since the OVERWHELMING evidence and verifiable data confirms it DAILY, and there are industries based on the FACT of evolution, your opinion that it is a religion shows how ignorant you willfully are."

          Except there is no evidence, let alone "overwhelming" evidence. No verifiable data confirms anything on evolution. It isn't testable, repeatable or demonstrable. And the whole "industries based on the FACT of evolution" is a fallacious statement. Which industries are those? And whatever you answer, be sure it requires evolution be a fact, not just that they have a presupposition that it's true.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher
          Do not EVER get a flu shot....they are made because evolution is reality. One example.

          Your statements are flat out false. Evolution is fact....deal with it.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Topher
          Pharmaceutical bio-chemistry, epidemiology, agriculture (especially pest control) are a few examples.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Topher, You have been provided the links to sites where evolution is explained in great detail. There's a reason that evolution is taught in schools and universities and creationism is not – there's a mountain of evidence for the former and none for the latter. You often then reply that you also don't want creationism taught; that's a good start but what other explanation are you offering? Don't forget that even if you were finding fault with evolution (as there are things we don't fully understand) that does not refute evolution as a whole and reinstate creationism as a serious alternative.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • Topher

          In Santa we trust

          "You often then reply that you also don't want creationism taught; that's a good start but what other explanation are you offering? Don't forget that even if you were finding fault with evolution (as there are things we don't fully understand) that does not refute evolution as a whole and reinstate creationism as a serious alternative."

          Every claim on evolution I know of has been proven either a lie or is only due to a presupposition. Vestigial whale legs (actually, vestigial anything), gills in human embryos, evidence in the fossil record ... none of it stands up. If you find actual evidence, I say have at it. But what is being taught in schools as truth is lies and I don't want to pay for it.

          Creationism is the alternative to the evolutionary worldview.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Topher
          "Every claim on evolution I know of has been proven either a lie"

          In over 150 years, Darwin's 5 laws have never been disproven.

          January 27, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Topher,

          Even if evolution were a bad or incorrect theory that would still not make it a religion. Religion has a fairly specific meaning and usage and yo can't just apply the term to every theory on earth. Creationism doesn't even in itself qualify as a religion. It is a theory that is part of one, but not a religion in itself any more than the empty tomb or the existence of Adam and Eve are in themselves religions. We are talking about two theories, one of which is a part of a single legacy of religions and the other which is shared by billions of people of diverse religions backgrounds around the world. The fact that millions of Hindus, Christians and Buddhists believe in the theory of evolution does not make it a part of ant of their religions specifically any more than theories regarding how antibiotics work are. It is an independent scientific theory.

          January 28, 2014 at 7:03 am |
      • Saraswati

        These are public schools, not private, paid for by tax dollars.If religion is taught it should be only as part of a social studies curriculum.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
      • igaftr

        Topher.
        At no point should religious dogma be allowed to be taught in public schools.EVER. Keep your superst!tions to yourself.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • Topher

          What part of "Should they? Probably not." don't you understand?

          January 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher
          what part of NEVER ALLOWED do you not understand. Keep your religions far away from schools.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • Topher

          AGAIN I'm fine with that. If you don't want your child taught a religion, you shouldn't be paying for it by your taxes. The same, however, goes with evolution.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher

          Once again...evolution is not a religion, has nothing to do with religion. It is science. Your assertion that it is religion is just ridiculous.

          Be my guest...show how it is a religion.
          The only way that will be possible is to change the definitions of many words, which I'm sure in your head you have done, but let's see the twisting your mind has to do to say evolution is a religion.
          I enjoy studying abnormal psychology, so please be detailed.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
      • ME II

        @Topher,
        "Allowed to? Yes. Should they? Probably not."

        Why should they be allowed to teach religion as science?

        Religion as religion, or philosophy, or history, sure that's be great and useful, but not as science.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • Topher

          Not sure what you mean?

          January 27, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher
          "Not sure what you mean?"

          In the article cited, Texas schools are teaching Creationism as science. Besides being basically a religious idea being taught in science class, it was ruled unconsti.tuional in, what, 1987, I think.

          January 27, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
  14. Flying Rodents

    Cull the pigeons.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
  15. DustyOnes

    Holy Spirit 2

    Satan 0

    January 27, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
    • doobzz

      Does "DustyOnes" refer to your balls?

      January 27, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
      • CNN Belief Blog Co-EditorCNN

        Now @Doobzz, you can challenge my editorial choices all you want. But keep your comments to others above the belt.

        Btw, I hear all of you and your calls for more diverse content - And it is coming soon.

        thanks,
        Daniel

        January 27, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • doobzz

          "But keep your comments to others above the belt."

          LMAO.

          Thanks, Daniel. Looking forward to it.

          January 27, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
  16. Lawrence of Arabia

    And in other important news, if your mom was an ironing board, and you dad was an iron, how many pancakes would it take to cover a doghouse? Six, because motorcycles don't have doors.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
    • Alias

      You are starting to make sense.
      Please keep going down this road to enlightenment.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
  17. doobzz

    Those must be troll crows and seagulls.

    January 27, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
    • Alias

      Proof that Satan walks/flies among us.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
      • doobzz

        And further proof that it's Pope-a-palooza every day on the CNN Belief Blog. Four non-articles in a row about the Pope.

        Daniel Burke needs to get out of his comfort zone of reporting on the pope's every sneeze and fart. Of course, that would take ideas and research outside of reading his Twitter feed and copying it over here.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
    • Science Works

      And old BLUE eyes from 7,000 years ago made the front page of CNN.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
      • doobzz

        I thought Larry King's eyes were brown.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
  18. Hmmmmm

    How do we know these birds arn't trying to mate? A little interracial crow on dove action...!

    January 27, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
    • doobzz

      There's probably something in the bible or RCC canon law that forbids interspecies bird love.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
      • Charn Quark

        The Cuckoo bird lays its eggs in other birds nest to avoid the hassle of chick care, sounds like a lot of fathers these days.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • doobzz

          Well, that would be the mother bird doing that, but the same idea still applies.

          Don't they also push the other eggs out sometimes?

          January 27, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • Brother Maynard

          Actually it is the chicks themselves, after they hatch, that kick un hatched eggs out of the nest

          January 27, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • doobzz

          @Brother Maynard

          I seem to remember that now from some long ago class. They hatch earlier and kick out the others.

          January 27, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
      • Brock

        Especially if the crow isn't wearing a Condor.

        January 27, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
  19. "Sleepy" Slade Baroni

    This is a story?????

    January 27, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
  20. Petra

    Obviously, nothing much is happening in the world of religion right now...

    January 27, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
    • Alias

      Nothing ever happens in the world of religion that can't be explained by a scientist, or a psychiatrist.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.