SInce forgeries in the minds of creationists mean there was no evolution, does priest molestation mean theres?
610503
After reading the Bible several times thoughtfully, I always THOUGHT whoever wrote it had it "in for us".\n\nMaybe priest molestation IS a pure form of "truth in advertizing" fot this assumption?  and then there is women doomed to childbirth in pain, so on, so on.
748442
Why do you think that all Christian priests always have sex with children.  don't they take time off to say mass?\n\nBut, seriously folks, I believe the incidence of child molestation among Catholic priests is because they are put upon to be sexless.  Unlike Muslim, Jewish, and other types of Christian clerics, Catholic priests are not allowed to marry. This is unnatural and just might be the cause of the perversion.
600224
There is a school of thought that the Biblical inerrancy doctrine is idolatry.  Creationism is the result of the Biblical inerrancy doctrine, and so it is the fruit of idolatry.  It is often claimed by the same people committing this act of idolatry, that idolatry is one of the greatest sins, and is the work of Satan.  From their own perspective, yes, creationism is the work of Satan as a result.\n\nOf course, they'll never admit that assigning divine attributes to a book is idolatry, but it's trivially obvious that it is.
168592
Evolution - massive evidence.\n\nCreation - only has (incorrect) snipes at evolution, no physical evidence in it's favor.\n\nPeople interested in this question should check out the Index to Creationist Claims, which lists all know allegations that Creationists have made about evolution and why they are wrong.\n\nCreationist Claims are often built on a misunderstanding of science (the "2nd law of thermo says evo wrong", "there are no transitional fossils") or have picked up a single outdated study and ignored all more recent evidence (the "dust on moon means moon is young") or just invent their own science - with no evidence - to explain away the obvious (the "micro- vs macroevolution" bit).\n\nIt is also worth pointing out that Creationists always try to poke holes in evolution. Even if they were correct and our current understanding of evolution were wrong *that doesn't mean creationism is right*. There needs to be POSITIVE evidence - PHYSICAL evidence - in favor of Creationist ideas. And their just isn't anything. All they have are cheap shots against evolution.\n\n\nDon't get my wrong, if someone wants to believe in creationism, a 6,000 year old Earth, or the Earth is flat, that is perfectly fine with me. Its a free country. But don't come telling me these things are science unless you have scientific proof - physical evidence in favor of your theory.\n\nCheck it out!\n\n\nPostscipt - another common difficulty, a failure to understand the meaning of "theory" in science as oppsed to colloquial language. There is also the "germ theory" and Newton's "theory of gravity." So, are you skeptical of bacteria and gravity because they are "just a theory?"
1164641
By God of course.  Every other belief is just a theory withouth any proof.  The proof that we were created by God is not only the Bible but everything around us.  It makes no sense to believe in evolution, because why has evolution taken a break for a very long time? Huh!  Charles Darwin was a scumbag, I bet he got hit with that evolutionary rock multiple times.
36205
The Catholic Church largely accepts that evolution happened. No dinosaur (other than their bird descendants) ever walked the Earth at the same time as man. Ever. Dinosaurs went extinct sixty five million years ago when a large asteroid struck the Earth in the Yucatan peninsula and spread a layer of iridium across the entire surface of the Earth (to this day, a thin layer of it can be found in the KT strata.)\n\nPope John Paul II, in a speech before the Academie Francaise said that evolution 'est plus qu'un theorie' (is more than a theory.) His assertion was that truth cannot contradict truth. It is true that God is capable of (and did) allow a universe to unfold over thirteen billion years. It is also true that he sent his son, Jesus Christ, to redeem the world on the cross.\n\nBoth are true. Science and what it discovers is important. Scientific truths allow us to improve our understanding of our environment, and come up with ways to improve our quality of life. And theological truths allow us to understand our purpose, and come up with ways of accepting his grace which improve our relationship with God. \n\nNeither needs to inhibit or stop the other. Nowhere in scripture do St. Paul or Jesus establish a soteriological test which requires, for salvation, a belief in a young Earth, or dinosaurs stomping down the streets of Fred Flinstone's Bedrock. Which is the more limiting? To insist that God is capable only of a 6,000 year old 6 day creation? Or that he might be capable of a 13 billion yeaar old universe 30 billion light years across? \n\nFaith in Christ, and that alone, is what is asked for. That is why our church does not teach against evolution.
729212
NO NO NO!!!\n\nThis is about science and the lack of divine intervention.  The reason the planet seems so perfectly balanced is because it had 4.6 Billion years to get here.  A lot can happen in the trial-and-error game in that amount of time.  The earth evolves, life evolves, the only thing that remains stagnent and vestigial is theism.\n\nWhat you proposed is non-science, it is not a testable hypothesis.  Evolution is a tried and true, uber-tested and passed law of life.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
880645
Almost every open debate between Creationists and Evolutionists are won by Creationists. That is why \nEvolutionists are afraid to have Creationism taught in schools/colleges. \n  Evolution is based on scientific proof,or so it is widely thought,but Creationism is also based on scientific proof. The fact that Creationists believe all living things were created by a Creator does NOT subtract from the fact that ALL creation science is based on scientifically proven fact. Creation Science is not just based on religious belief,but on hard scientific facts. Thus,I believe Creation Science should be taught in schools as the opposing view to Evolutionary Science. How can our children be fully informed of all the facts if only one side is taught to them? As it stands right now, evolution is being taught as the only answer to the origin of life,and it hasn't been openly challenged...until now. \n   Those who don't believe in creation say that it shouldn't be imposed upon their children in the schools,but there are other things to consider.What about those of us who don't want evolution imposed upon OUR children? What makes anyone think that the rights of the evolutionists supercede the rights of creationists? \n   Not to put any less value on the other religions of the world,but Creationism and Evolutionism are the two largest worlwide beliefs,and the most debated over. I feel it is only fair and logical for Creationism to also be taught in schools/colleges as the opposing view to Evolutionism and let the people who are being taught make an equally informed decision as to which one they believe to be more factual and logical.\n   I cannot speak for all Christians,but I for one am prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to see that this happens,or to at least get the ball rolling,so to speak. Yes,I realize it will be an uphill battle,and I am only one person,but the voice of one  can lead to the voices of many being heard. As I said before,this isn't just a matter of religion,because Creationism is also based on scientific fact,and we can prove that if given the chance to broadcast it wordwide. As it is right now,evolutionists have thwarted all efforts to make creationism a known truth against them,but if enough people are willing to stand up and declare their rights to have their side represented,then sooner or later, we will be taken seriously and our voices will be heard.
537153
no.  there was a show on a few weeks ago about his siblings, and how if he was holy, wouldn't they be to?  It was an interesting show, but there is no DNA from Jesus left today, not even on the shroud of Turin, which some claim is a fake anyway.
1007783
All religions have creation stories (or at least most of them) so no, that's not proof.
66439
Creationism means that "Zap!" there we (and all other living things) were... created as is in the blink of any eye (or a few days).  This is Biblical mythology.  Although interesting, it has been shown with much evidence to be incorrect.\n\nIntelligent design means that God either set in motion the changes that man and nature would undergo from the very begining... or that he invisibly changed nature over many thousands of millions of years and still continues to do so today... very slowly!  So that he set things up for evolution to occur and still controls it.\n\nHowever this "theory" cannot be tested.  We cannot, by the definition of God, experiment on God to prove what God has or has not done.  Many people BELIEVE that because nature is so complex, that it must have had an intelligent creator and therefore the intelligent creator exists.  But this does not prove the assumption that "If nature is complex, then it must have had an intelligent creator".  That statement is where the faith lies.\n\nEvolution shows that beings have changed over the millions of years by natural selection.  It does not say that God did or did not have a hand in it.  It is merely fact.\n\nSome people think that evolution is blasphemous because it contradicts the Old Testament.  But many things that are done now-a-days by most modern Christians contradict the Old Testament. (Dietary habits, clothing, etc.)  Even intelligent design contradicts the old testament.\n\nThe statement "The sky is blue." (on a clear day!) is no more or less true if you think it's blue because (1) God made it blue, or (2) because God set up the atmospheric conditions to make the sky blue, or (3) it is blue only because of atmospheric conditions and not because of God.\n\n"Evolution happend" is just a fact.  If you think it happened because of God or not is really a matter of faith.\n\nAnd being part of faith, should be kept out of government.  Much of the US constitution is based on keeping religion and goverment separate.  Evolution is fact and should be taught.  If you think it occured because of God, that is great, but it is not science.  Faith has done some wonderful things.  So has science.  But to contaminate faith with science is like trying to experiment on God.  And to enter faith into science completely destroys the objectivity of science.\n\nBoth creationism and intelligent design are based on faith and should not be taught in public schools.\n\n\nP.S.  To say that evolution cannot be proven is absurd.  There is countless evidence in favor of it.  Just as the theory of gravity.  You will have to read up on natural selection.
884798
Please visit my blog http://360.yahoo.com/catholiccatechism and read my "Pacifico (of Evolution per Creationism ) - The Reconciling (of Evolution with Creationism)"\n\nThis blog entry will explain to you why you do not have to choose between science and theology. In fact, the very idea that this choice must be made is entirely fallacious. They both coexist just fine.
515747
Nope, there is no logical evidence supporting creationalism.
1101597
No you are not.  There are several theories to evolution.  Some are compatible with Christianity, some are not.  Belief in anyone of them, even if a wrong one, is not serious enough to get you damned (unless it causes you to act in certain ways that are contrary to the Christian life.)  Remember belief is only part of salvation, you have to do something with your belief.\n\nAs a note:  If you read Genesis Ch 1 in Hebrew you will notice that the verb that is used for "God created..." switches back and forth from having God as its exclusive object to being a more open ended.  The verb that means "God personally did the creating" is applied at the beginning of creation and at the creation of man.  The other verbs are along the lines of "called forth from" an indication that while God willed certain creation to be so, it was the process of creation (ie evolution) that actually formed that which was created.\n\nAlso you should know that certain theories of evolution have a long and strong history within Christianity.  Look up the Monk Gregory Mendel and his studies on genetics.  Also you should be aware that Catholics had an idea of evolution millennia before Darwin.\n\nLet me quote at length from FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA\n\n1.  The materialist doctrine of evolution...is contrary to Revelation.\n\n2.  The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God's causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem forms (doctrine of descent), according to God's plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation.  However, as regards to MAN, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul.  Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures.  Proceeding from the assumption that God creates everything at one time (cf. Ecclus. 18.1), they taught that God brought a certain part of His creation into existence in a finished state, while He created others in the form of primitive seeds (rationes, seminales, or causales) from which they were gradually to develop.  Those Fathers and Schoolmen who accepted a development, conceived a development of the individual species of living things each from a particular primitive form created by God;  but modern theories of evolution (descendent theory) conceives that development as from one species to another.  According as these give priority to evolution from a plurality of original forms or from one single stem-form (primitive form) one speaks of a many-stemmed (polyphyletic) or single-stemmed (monophyletic) development.  From the stand point of the doctrine of evolution, either form is possible.
421998
The adherents of Darwin's principle of evolution say Yes, those that believe in creation by God say No, but common sense teaches that we are human being and we never change from anything or to anything. Man is unique in nature and has always remain man since existence. Also since we have not been able to identify any being that has changed to another since men have been keeping records (apart from process of metamorphosis)my conclusion is "Man did not descend from apes"
1064729
Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism.  There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level.  And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this.  Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead.  We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nLet me turn your question around, if (as many claim here) Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not?  That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world.  No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'.  There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence.  Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first.  They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing.  And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/) and find out for yourself.
766101
Creationism is not science and can never be science. A fundamental point of anything scientific is that it is constantly being revised every time a new fact appears. That is the way evolution works. Millions of new facts have appeared since the 1800s and all of them have been able to easily fit into a theory that is flexible and predictive. \n\nOne of the characteristics of science is that it has falsifiability - that is, you have to explain what proof you would accept that your theory is wrong. Evolution would be wrong if there was any meaningful evidence that the Earth was only a few thousand years old. Evolution would be wrong if there was no evidence that animals are related to each other. But despite desperate searching, the anti-evolutionists have not come up with any evidence for either of these points. \n\nOn the other hand, the creationist guys refuse to explain what evidence they would accept that creationism is wrong. That alone means that they cannot be regarded as scientific and that alone makes their viewpoint a religious one which ought to be excluded from science classrooms. That is the legal position in the USA, confirmed over and over by many courts - most recently last summer when a very conservative judge appointed by President Bush threw out a case where some Pennsylvania religious fanatics were trying to get creationism taught in school. The judge gave them a tongue lashing and told them to stop wasting the court's time!