The closest galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. That means it would take a beam of light 2.5 million years to go from here to there. But if you went there you would still find the Spirit of God. I have no problem with an old Earth or universe. That just means God is far more magnificent than my human eyes or mind can possibly perceive. Praise the Lord.

Catholics are so down to earth.

Richard Dawkins dislike this video... Trent Horn, FTW!

So when and how did the first sin occur? Did God create the world through evil, suffering and death, as the evolution theory by natural selection teaches? Of what did God forgive us through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross exactly then? There are some big BIG holes you need to fill there.

The problem with this answer, in my opinion, is that it grants far too much that ultimately undermines faith in the Bible. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the failure of the Church to stick to the pronouncements of Lateran IV and Vatican I -- i.e. that God "by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing" -- has, more than anything else, devastated the credibility of the biblical account of creation. We certainly don't attempt to accommodate the findings of modern science or even common sense when it comes to the Virgin Birth, the Multiplication of the Loaves, or the Resurrection. To do so would obviously undermine central tenets of the Catholic faith. Why on earth should it be any different with the miracle of Creation? Scientists already think we're bonkers for believing in the Real Presence, the Corporal Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, Walking on Water, etc. Why all this worry when it comes to Genesis? There can never be harmony between the Bible and a naturalism which rejects the miraculous a priori. And if anything deserves to be considered as miraculous, the creation of all things ex nihilo certainly qualifies.

(God)(0)(Everything)Theism (0)(Big bang)(Everthing) What caused the spark for the bang?If the universe was initially compressed what caused the compression?

I dont think I ever had anything against evolution. However if we about the creation in genesis. It leaves no room for fish to man evolution. Separated by billions of years. According to the scientific method of the creation event in genesis.

Wisdom - Chapter 19 :18 A new attuning of the elements occurred, as on a harp the notes may change their rhythm, though all the while preserving the same tone; and this is just what happened: 19 land animals became aquatic, swimming ones took to the land,

Check out John Sanford's book on evolution called Genetic Entropy. It's a complete dismantling of the theory from the genetic perspective.

(Macro) Evolution is bad science, built upon materialist assumptions and it is against the traditional doctrine of Creation propagated by the Holy Catholic Church. God creates all things good, it is an error to say that God had to or chose to use death, decay and mutation to bring about the creation of mankind (the God of death?). It is also absurd to say that God used evolution, through death and mutation, to create an immortal man whereas his first sin brought death into the world after death was already in the world. There is a serious theological contradiction there and since God cannot lie, the problem is with the science. What is called Micro-Evolution is true: it is the variations we see within a kind or a species. There are many kinds of birds but they are all birds. There are many variations within the human species but they are all completely 100% human beings. People who promote Macro-Evolution (the change of a kind of creature into an entirely different kind, i.e. the essence or nature of the creature can "evolve" into something else entirely) don't really believe it in the first place. To believe in Macro-Evolution you must say that life evolved from the lower order to the higher order, that lower life brought forth higher life, and that you can get more out of less. The evolutionist plainly states that life evolved upwards from a simple celled organism into more complex beings over a course of "a long time". Those who support macro-evolution don't really believe it and I can prove it. Go outside and find a tree. Do you believe that a tree could evolve into a human being, given any amount of time that you want (trillions of years)? If you do not believe that a tree could become a human being then you don't believe in Macro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution states that something less complex than the tree (the first simple cell) eventually became a human being over a course of a long time. If something more complex (such as a tree) cannot do it then something less complex (such as a simple cell) cannot do it either. Therefore you don't believe in macro-evolution. We know that the nature of the tree is to be a tree, it is limited by its treeness or nature; it cannot become something higher than its nature because it does not have the capacity to do so. As Christians we see this with human nature. Our nature is fallen and the human race subsists in original sin. We do not have the capacity within ourselves to transcend our own nature, so it takes something higher than ourselves to pull us up. In this case it is God's Grace, whereas in Baptism we become a new creature entirely. The higher raises up the lower; the lower does not and cannot bring itself up to a higher nature. It simply does not have the capacity, within itself, to do so. After knowing the logic behind these principles the only way an evolutionist Christian (theistic evolutionist) can maintain his position is to say that God used a trillion little miracles to make evolution work, this is absurd. God creates things good; the idea that he must use a trillion miracles to have a perfect creation is to insinuate that God created trillions of things imperfectly and slowly perfected them. (a God of imperfection? When Jesus turned the water into wine, it was the best and more perfect wine ever!) St. Thomas Aquinas writes, "...the first perfection is the completeness of the universe at its first founding, and this is what is ascribed to the seventh day. [ST, I, q. 73, a. 1.,] This means that the imperfections we see now in creation are a result of sin (For example: genetic defects and birth defects) and not of God's creative Wisdom, or lack of perfection in his designs. 2nd Peter 3:3-6, Know this first of all, that in the last days scoffers will come (to) scoff, living according to their own desires and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? From the time when our ancestors fell asleep, everything has remained as it was from the beginning of creation." They deliberately ignore the fact that the heavens existed of old and earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God; through these the world that then existed was destroyed, deluged with water. The creation of the Universe entailed the first perfection; the fall of man brought forth disorder and death in the order of creation; the worldwide deluge altered the face of the planet forever. Things have not always continued as they are now; the beginning of creation was remarkably different! Materialistic science tries to explain the beginning of creation by looking at things as they are today, without taking into account that things have not always continued as they do today. There assumptions are wrong and their evolutionary worldview is not rational, reason itself demands its rejection and so does the traditional doctrine of Creation.

Creation / Evolution Debate 19 - Three on One! - Dr. Hovind vs 3 Embry-Riddle University Professors

And the evening and the morning were the 1rst day, the evening and the morning were the 2nd day and so on. It's very clear what a day is in Genesis 1 but you accept the word of man. Apostasy on it's way.

The idea that a large lush creation with dinosaurs existed for millions of years before man does make the need for man's stewardship over the creatures seem obscure, even detrimental. The idea that the flood killed the big 600 year old lizards makes the most sense to me. I bet it killed the mammoths and sloths to.

adapt not evolve

My question to every catholic here do you people believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and that he rose again from the dead?

This is the reason why i left the catholic church if a bunch of guys come with some ideas the catholic church puts it into the dogmatic belief of theirs, if you think that there's no contradiction between evolution and creation i don't think we worship the same God let alone the same savior!

Kent Hovind...

No, no, no, no, no. Add up the dates in the Bible from all the way to Adam, it comes up around 6000. God made if VERY clear that these days were literal days. Morning, Evening, Time, Day was repeated 6 times. If there is death before sin then there is absolutely no reason for Jesus Christ. Genesis 1-11's literal interpretation is the foundation for every single moral world view. Kent Hovind and Ken Ham give a scientific explanation towards Genesis supporting it completely.

This is what Catholic church thinks about evolution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church