There is more physical and scientific evidence supporting creation over evolution. What do you believe?

Question

Explain your theory, or why you supposrt either idea. Both are religous, the only difference is that evolution is tax supported.

Ohhhhhhh and if you believe in evolution explain who some galaxies are spinning backwords, in oder to completely change directions while rotating you would have to stop.

Answer 1

I believe in both Creation and Evolution.

The Catholic Church does not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact.

One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good.

Catholics can believe in the theory of evolution. Or not. The Church does not require belief in evolution.

On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the theory of evolution is the most logical scientific explanation. However tomorrow someone may come up with a better idea.

As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and modern science can live in harmony.

With love in Christ.

Answer 2

The burden is not on the science community to disprove creationism.

Creationists like to start with the premise that there is something like a 50-50 chance of god and then ask scientists to disprove it. That's not how things work. You start with zero chance of god and go from there looking for some factual evidence. So far, there is none whatsoever.

Evolution theory is not a religion. It is based on facts and evidence.

You say there is more physical and scientific evidence supporting creation. Where is that evidence? What are your facts? One book called a bible doesn't make it true. Nor does, "this is so complicated there must have been an intelligent designer" - that arguement simply means you don't know.

Answer 3

Sounds like you are looking for fight, and YOU already have all the right answers. Here's mine:

Creation is WHAT happened.
Evolution is HOW it happened.

I see no conflict whatsoever between the scientific evidence of evolution, and the spiritual truth of what it all means.

Evolution doesn't attempt to give or to take away meaning from life, and makes no spiritual statement whatsoever.

And the Bible was not handed down as a biology text book and was not written as such.

You are probably relying on the first book of the Bible to support the idea that it all happened exactly as described there. Well, riddle me this:

Genesis says Eve came from Adam's rib.
And it also says man and women were created in one act "...he created them."

So, which is it? Man -then woman? Or both. You probably think that one statement is sort of general, and the other tells exactly how it was done. So you think. But the Bible doesn't say, "and here's how He did it," does it? Nope. That's YOUR idea. And there's not a shred of biblical scholarship to support your idea. But there's a ton of evidence that Genesis and most books of the Bible are a compilation of material from various sources, all rolled up into a text for us to read today. Done over a period of time - a long period of time.

And as to tax support ...how much income tax does your church pay? None. Property Tax? None. Sales tax? None. The money that does NOT go to taxes goes ...where? To your church programs.

God gave us brains to help figure it all out. Do your part. Use yours.

Answer 4

The 'problem' with your question dear is that once you posit the existence of an all knowing all powerful creator - There is simply no way to 'prove' He hasn't been at work. Understand? It's a conspiracy theory. Any lack of evidence is because the conspirators were too slick to leave it. I once posed a scientific conundrum to a fundamentalist Christian on Noah's flood. You see the Earth is a globe. So if it was ever completely covered in water, there would be no place for the water to drain to. (Pretty clever eh?) The Christian smiled and said "Where do you think I think the water came from?" I said: " I think you think God put it here." He said "That is correct. Now where do you think I think it went?" lol. You see the joke? The answer is he thinks God took it away. ... And there is NOTHING 'unscientific' about that answer. Because SCIENCE does not posit the non existence of hyper-intelligent life. In fact it posits quite the reverse, that the Universe is entirely capable of evolving intelligent life. See Science is the study of cause & effect. And once we have an all knowing all powerful being as the cause, the effect can be ANYTHING. The argument may sound absurd - like God creating a fossil record just to make it look like we evolved, but it is never illogical because a God could do that. Humans already create VR games with rocks, trees, rivers & animals. We have even given the characters of these worlds some intelligence. Now it is likely one day our VR characters can be made as intelligent as humans are. Could we at that time make their world APPEAR natural? Could we create a fossil record so they would not suspect our involvement. Could we move among them without them knowing we were gods? Could we let them evolve or guide their evolution as it pleased us & without a trace? The answer is yes. And while I do not think this is the case, I absolutely hold that you cannot 'prove' it isn't. Because proof is verification of cause & their 'cause' can do anything. Nor can you escape the fact that YOU are biased against the existence of hyper-intelligent intervention. Could allegedly random mutation really be directed mutations introduced in a lab? We are already doing that. And there is absolutely NOTHING to stop technologically savvy extra terrestrials from experimenting on our ecosystem. Urban myths of alien abductions abound. You see whether it's abiogenesis, evolution, the big bang or global warming .... there is a big difference between the science of what does happen (e.g. gravity) and the science of what might have happened. You presume God was not involved as they presume He was. You can always say "The DNA doesn't look engineered" ... And they can always say "That is what God intended" They can always say "This change was too complex to happen randomly" You can always answer "We just don't understand precisely how yet" JFTR It's always refreshing to see someone knows the difference between Evolution & Abiogenesis, As well as the difference between the Logos God & the Creature God.

Answer 5

Creationism can not be proven false, this is true. Because Creation deals with areas or study not linked to physical evidence, there can't really be a way to disprove a god or another creator. However, there is a large base of evidence supporting evolution, and almost all scientists see evolution as fact, although there are some minor kinks yet to be figured out. I don't think that the world can ever come to "pick" one over the other, as Creationism deals more in the realm of "Why?", while evolution answers "How?"

Answer 6

"Why are some galaxies spinning backwards?"

Did you know that the direction that the inner core of earth rotates changes every ~700,000 years? We know this because we can see that the magnetic field switches(i.e. north becomes south). If the inner core of earths rotation can switch direction, I would bet that galaxies could as well.

As for the actual question, I don't think there is any scientific evidence supporting creation. There is some evidence supporting evolution, but there are many gaps that need to be filled. Personally, I think that anyone who thinks the world is ~6000 years old is an idiot. As not just one radioactive dating method confirms that it is millions of years old, but upwards of 20 and THEY ALL AGREE!!!!

Answer 7

There are no direct observations which support Creation. There are no confirmed sightings of a Creator or Creators. The only "evidence" we have for Biblical Creationism is Moses's word, and we know that he's unreliable, since he exaggerated the story of Noah and the flood.

Religion is tax-subsidized. Churches and religions get tax breaks in this country (USA).

Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on isolated islands and archipelagos, and it does extend well to continents too.

Answer 8

Just what is your acquantaince with the topic of evolution? I don't suppose you ever took a university course in the subject? I ask not to insult, but because no one who ever did could still think that way, and yet those who never have still claim to know where all of the evidence points.

Doesn't make much sense to me...

If you are really interested in the evidence, try just reading the chapter in an introductory university bio text instead of a whole book on evolution, and msg me back if any part of it is not making sense to you. Seriously, I will help.

Remember, one out of the two areas of study (of science and religion) stresses the importance of evidence and the other stresses the importance of faith.
Which one do you suppose has the evidence?

Answer 9

There is only physical, scientific evidence for evolution. That is why evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism isn't. Creationism doesn't even fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis. Evolution is not religious, it was a scientific hypothesis that has been supported by reasoning, experimentation, and observation, thus it became a scientific theory.

Answer 10

the Bible says the sun stopped for a day with no problem, so why shouldn't the galaxies rotate backwards

now that is real proof of creationism, I am impressed