re: evolution and creationism poll

boyohboyohboy wrote: I am seriously wondering how can you believe in both?
I mean to say, doesnt one basically mean you cant believe in the other???
I am just wondering what the thoughts are of the people who did post both??
I know crystal didnt want to let comments be made, but I am not asking you to debate what is real and what isnt, I am just wondering what the thought process is that there can be both evolution and creationism.
It will probably be good for me to hear both sides since it wont be long before this is an issue that is brought up in my sons school...It will help me be ready for anything that he might come home with.

amymom replied: They are not mutually exclusive in my mind....

The way I believe it is it didn't happen exactly as an Adam & Eve story, but it happened over time but it was designed to happen that way. This is what I believe is meant by intelligent design. I don't think it all came about by accident, but that it happened by the hand of God. Evolution doesn't exclude God from the picture, just people do.

I believe God designed it all. And evolving is what we do. Hey.... soon people won't have an appendix, That is evolution. But it is all designed by God.

~Roo'sMama~ replied: I don't think there can be both. The Bible clearly states that God created everything in seven days. That doesn't sound much like evolving to me.

boyohboyohboy replied:
thats more what I was thinking, if you believe in the bible, and it says just how man was created and how long, then how can it be evolution..?

amymom replied: This is not meant to be argumentative but informative. I have questioned, studied and prayed about this. And I think in order to understand the question we must study both evolution THEORY and the bible. Evolution is a theory.

And ... in the bible it does not say that a day was 24 hours long.

People smarter than I have studied this....



And .... the bible often affirms that: God is the sole principle of all things visible and invisible, the creator of all In many places it states that the earth and all things began with God and God alone.

And ....The opening words of Genesis, "In the beginning God created", are also in similar phrases throughout the Bible.

And in order to believe in Jesus we must believe that a first sin.... original sin existed ... otherwise there was no reason for Jesus to come and save us.

boyohboyohboy replied: annie marie, thank you for answering this for me.
what about then the description of how adam was created?
I can see what you are saying about the "days" not being actual days as we know it.

Crystalina replied: I'm not going to argue anyone's point but rather state my own.

I do believe in the fact that 'God created earth in 7 days' does not mean "our" 7 days. More like one day for him could have been hundreds of years give or take a century.

I voted both creationism and evolution.
I believe God created man in his own image. "His own image" to me does not mean the way he looks. In Revelations he is described as a white light, white beard....(something like that), we are obviously not walking around glowing our eternal lights are we? I believe that "in his own image" means the way God is inside. He made us to be able to think, problem solve, love.....I believe that is what "in his own image" means.

Now, with that said, I believe the first man was made more ape-like. The whole hairy body, dragging knuckles and figuring out what fire is while we ate the bugs off of our mates. Over the years we stood more upright, made the wheel and realized that we could go to the pharmacy and get a shampoo to take care of the bugs on our mates (who over time we called our spouses). All one really has to do is look at very, very old photographs. Women looked like men and men were hairier then they should have been. You look at men back then and the men now with their manicures and waxed chests....evolution.

In all seriousness, I doubt God made the first man and he looked like George Clooney. Nah, I'd say he looked more like Big Foot.

boyohboyohboy replied: Then you are saying that when the bible says that God, took man from the dirt and breathed on him and made him alive, that "man" was ape like?

but isnt there more to evolution then just being from an ape?
and why are there not more fossils or evidence of man before us?
like there shows a progression of dinosaures thru bones and things found?

boyohboyohboy replied: I just had another thought..
doesnt it make sense that since what God would create is perfect that he would create a perfect man, and then as time evolved he would degenerate, so in fact in the end we would end up more like the ape then a man instead of going the other way?

doesnt science kinda of show that to be the truth, that things degenerate over time, not get better?

luvmykids replied: I agree with you on that, for those who believe Creationism the Bible clearly describes how he created Adam as human, with thoughts and emotions.

With regard to the fossils, there is a theory among some Creationists that when the Bible talks about creation, the original word actually means "re-create" and that before that there had been a period of time where there was existence on the earth. The people who believe that theory think that was the age of dinosaurs and they were wiped out as some evolutionists believe, by a flood or some other disaster. I'm not well versed in that theory and have only heard it explained in depth once or twice, but it might give you something to think about, Stacey.

Boo&BugsMom replied: I believe anything that contradicts what the Bible says is false. Period. That is JMO because of my religious beliefs. I do think that the Bible is literal, I believe if the Bible explains that Adam and Eve were created from dust, than that is what is truth. God IS that powerful, IMO.

I do not believe for a second that we come from monkeys. I think that is absurd, to be honest, but to each is own if someone wants to think that. Then how can someone explain why were still have monkeys, if that is the case? Also, the Bible clearly states how He created man and what man would look like in His image...and the image is not a monkey, IMO.

The Bible clearly explains certain things, but there are some other things that are not...like how God created the Earth itself. I guess in that respect I can see how some people can believe in creationism and also believe parts of evolution. I have no idea if God created the Earth using the Big Bang...and to be honest I think it's really not our place to have all the answers either. But, it could be possible unless someone can point out how that contradicts God's Word...then I would immediately digress.

I do believe that in some cases science and creationism can go hand in hand, but in some cases they just can't...for me it can't when it contradicts what the Bible says, IMO. If it doesn't contradict it, then I am open to anything.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Adam and Eve WERE perfect when they were first made because they were made in God's image...which is perfect. It's the eating off of the tree of knowledge that brought sin into the world. IMO, a monkey doesn't understand right from wrong or have the type of remorse as we do, or the same emotions. The Bible explains that Eve felt very ashamed of her actions, and both Adam and Eve went and grabbed leaves to cover their privates when sin came into the world because they realized they were NAKED (a monkey has fur and isn't naked) and felt shame (a monkey doesn't feel remorse or shame, IMO).

All of this doesn't sound like monkey language to me.

Of course....JMO and trying to help you Stacy.

my2monkeyboys replied: I chose both because I do believe that God created the world, in its entirety, be it through the "big bang" or not. I believe that creatures change over time to adapt to their surroundings, but I do not believe one creature evolved from another. Adaption, yes, complete evolution, no.

boyohboyohboy replied:
I totally believe what the bible teaches in its literal sense...
I do realize that there are many translations and that some of the original thoughts might have been changed....but not to the degree that the message is changed..I dont believe that God would leave us with nothing of his original plan.
but that being said...I thought this was an interesting topic since schools do teach both or at least evolution to have had this conversation at length for when the time comes my kids come home with these same thoughts and questions..

my2monkeyboys replied: I chose both because I do believe that God created the world, in its entirety, be it through the "big bang" or not. I believe that creatures change over time to adapt to their surroundings, but I do not believe one creature evolved from another. Adaption, yes, complete evolution, no.

luvmykids replied:
I'm not talking so much about translations saying different things, more along the lines of in depth study of the original language and what the literal translation is, the same way we pick apart words and say "That came from Latin, and means such and such." I wasn't saying that meaning I don't take the Bible literal, just that there is often more to what the black and white words are when the original context is studied...not meaning creation is different than what we read in Genesis, but that there is more to it.

I'm trying to prepare also for the kids being taught evolution. I was in a private Christian school for elementary so it wasn't an issue, when I got to high school I knew enough to just answer the test questions according to the text books. FWIW, at this point, I plan to tell the kids that since evolution is based on science more than an abstract theory, that is why it is taught in school.

TheOaf66 replied: oh goodness...religious debate

everyone get ready for lockdown and flaming and hurt feelings and eventually nasty words, differing opinions, radical ideas and then eventual closing of thread

Another manic monday at PC

my2girls replied: Adaption and evolution are the same thing. Adaption is one of the explantion (definition) of evolution. Evolution is usually defined simply as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Natural selection is also, evolution and adaption.

What Darwin was so excited about with the Galapogos Islands is that every living thing ( fish, anilmals, plants) were in their very primitive state, that these things never left the islands for generations. Those that did leave the island evolved ( adapted) to their new places because of different climates and foods , that the next generation that was breed knew how to survive because the parents new found adaption was passed along to them, and so on and so on.
So the galapogos animals were the same but different from what we see today. Either larger size ( because they had no predators) or tolerances to heat/cold ( more stable in heat or cold) and different diets ( that plays a roll in health). When climate changes and food is scarce you wander and adapt ( evolve) toward your new enviroment, then the next generation is breed with this knowledge.

I don't know if we came from apes or not, I don't think we came from dirt ( that is just IMHO). But someone said if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys today...maybe we were the ones that "left" the island and evolved ( adapted) to our new enviroment.

There are lots of science theories out there that people call FACT like :

The theory of relativity,
Gravity is a law and a theory, we know that when an object falls its because of gravity BUT we don't know how gravity works, there are several theories.
Theory of plate tectonics, contintental drift.

There are laws and then there are theories, some can be both.

boyohboyohboy replied: but the question is not, is their either evolution or creation, its how can you say that there is both.....

my2girls replied:
I understand that, I was just pointing out how Darwin came about that theory and that adaption, natural selection and evolution are all the same thing by definition (and Darwin's own words) becasue some say adaption is possible but not evolution but they are one and the same.

As far as both, well since I don't believe in God or the Bible I can't answer that.
That is one of the reasons why I no longer believe in God/Bible, I can't wrap my brain around that we came from dirt, that the earth is young and that the Bible is to be taken literally.
Science can explain many things and some people that trust the Bible as truth explain away some of them because the Bible says ..blank, blank, blank ( fill in the verse or passage here when explaining certain stuff) and just shove away scientific evidence because it goes againist what was written in the Bible.

Some things can't be explained by science and maybe that is where intelligent design comes in or maybe we don't have the brain capacity to understand everything yet, who knows.

cameragirl21 replied: I chose both for a very simple reason--evolution can be proven through a combination of history and science, creationism cannot be proven, it is a question of belief.
Evolution is knowledge, creationism is faith, one can have both knowledge and faith, the two are not mutually exclusive.
I do believe in the Torah but I believe it is largely allegorical meant to teach a lesson and a way of life and that the details and whether or not they actually happened as they did are unimportant...the important part is to learn from them and apply them to your daily life.
There is no doubt that all living things evolve, it is happening today and will happen for as long as living beings exist on earth. Mutations in diseases are proof positive of evolution--the AIDS virus mutates hundreds of times a day, it is a living thing that is evolving in order to survive and any scientist who makes it his/her life goal to eradicate AIDS has to create something that evolves faster than this virus. Evolution is all around you and within you whether you choose to believe in it or not.
As to the bible, for me personally, I do believe in a higher power that can make things happen, I have seen living proof of this. However I don't believe for a second that this higher power works against science and knowledge but rather I believe this higher power works in tandem with both.
In order to have religious beliefs, you must first study religious texts and gain knowledge in order to understand what it is that you believe in and as such, I believe the two must go hand in hand as you can't have faith without knowledge but you most certainly can have knowledge without faith.

boyohboyohboy replied:
but darwin also said that if the fossils that he assumed were there were never found that he admitted himself that his theory might not be right..

I am trying to figure out how its possible to combine both theories..
when christian belief is so straight forward.
I can see either being for one or the other..but not both.

boyohboyohboy replied:
I must say Jennifer that I do not believe you have to have studies to have faith..
faith itself is just believing in something "just because" with out seeing it on paper or in books.

I agree to disern about whether you follow either evolution or creationism then it might be wise to learn about them.. or at least disprove one or the other.

there are times that due to my faith I chose to stay away from books or movies that are against what i believe in, I just chose to not allow those thoughts into my mind...(for instance harry potter books)

I thought it was very interesting that when the poll was posted that so many people chose the middle ground..instead of one or the other, that wasnt what I expected..
so in anticipation of this topic coming up again in my life, was interested in how the thought process started with others.

Crystalina replied: I'm not going to quote anyone at this point because there are a few of you saying the same thing. Pretty much that if the bible said that God created man as perfect then that's what he created...not an ape (which is different from a monkey btw. LOL).
We have evidence that creatures evolve and that they continue to. Does that mean that those creatures were not made perfect originally? No, he did make them perfect but to me that does not limit them to only look one certain way all their being. To me that is the same as man. He could have made "man" and thought that he was perfect. And we are (we're the smartest creatures on the planet) but does that mean we will never evolve as well? Why would God make all the other creatures (leaving out the gators and turtles ) yet leave "man" to stay the same for all eternity? Makes no sense to me. And when it says that God made man perfect...who's to say we've gotten there yet? Making man "perfect" could mean a thousand things. I doubt he put all his cards out on the table with one swoosh. If that were the case what is our purpose here? Just as "in his own image" does not mean (IMO) that his "image" is in the physical sense. God loves himself. Have you read the bible? He wants everyone to know who he is and that he is responsible for this or that and that he has the power to give and to take away. Why would he want us to look just like him?

I think some people (not saying anyone here) has issues with thinking they may come from an ape-like person. Not me.
And (IMO) as far as why are there still apes on the earth? I'm not saying that we came from that kind of ape. More of a Sasquashy type.

Crystalina replied:
That's why I'm done posting in here.
I explained my vote and then clarified it.

my2girls replied: [QUOTE=boyohboyohboy,Feb 16 2009, 10:49 AM][[/QUOTE]
but darwin also said that if the fossils that he assumed were there were never found that he admitted himself that his theory might not be right..

I am trying to figure out how its possible to combine both theories..
when christian belief is so straight forward.
I can see either being for one or the other..but not both.[/QUOTE]

This is what was said:

In Darwin's view, species are in a constant state of flux, so these intermediate types should be very common. The problem was that at the time of the publication of Origin of Species, not a single transitional fossil had been identified. Darwin's explanation for this was that the transitional fossils were out there, but the known fossil record was so incomplete that they just hadn't been found yet.


Scientist and Geologist do believe that we have not uncovered everything, the world is huge! There have been transitional fossils found after Darwins time that help his theory.
Just google "transitional fossils" to get a list.
It has been 150 years since Orgins of Species was published, ( by no means was Darwin the first to come about the theory of evolution , just the 1st to be published) and we have more resources and a better understanding of where to locate fossils now. That is the beauty of the sciences , they are constantly evolving as we learn new things.

I don't want to debate which is right or wrong. I am just trying to clarify a few things. Questioning things and asking opinions is cool and may lead to a new understanding or just make your belief stronger.
I am glad that this is staying civil and I have come away with a better understanding of where some Christians come from.

My2Beauties replied:
Not arguing just merely stating that ape-like doesn't mean we were true apes, we resembled that of an ape more so than we do now, there were true apes and man was more ape-like looking, that's my understanding of it. Just wanted to add that in, I don't think we were once apes and some of them stayed apes/monkeys and some evolved, I think we resembled apes more so than we do now. Also I thought monkeys had emotions etc...I may be wrong, I'm definitely no animal expert.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Sure I think animals are capable of "some" emotion. But I highly doubt that apes or monkeys, or any animal for that matter would feel shame if they were naked or if their fur was shaved off. That was my point. In the Bible Adam and Eve felt shame when they realized they were naked (after sin entered the world) and covered themselves up with fig leaves (I think it was fig). An ape, or monkey, or any animal, IMO, would not have acted like that. This is just one reason why I can't ever believe that we evolved from anything that resembled an ape or any other kind of ape-like species. And yes Crystal, I put sasquatch in that same category. And if God (hypothetically speaking) did in fact choose to evolve us out of an ape-like creature or whatnot, I would gladly except it if that is the truth because I except anything God does (whether I like it or not). I however, due to the studies I have done believe that it contradicts what the Bible says, so I choose to not agree with it.

boyohboyohboy replied:
thanks for all the facts!
I to am enjoying this conversation.
let me just put this out there.....
isnt Darwin's theory just that theory?
darwins theory isnt scientific fact..

probably because his theory requires that the fossils must be found..

I can see how some people do believe in evolution..(well I dont see how they chose to believe that one in particular) but I can see how its made into a theory..
but my own mind is thinking, how can a believer in God think that creation is from evolution when the bible itself speaks of exact steps on how things got here..
and God doesnt ask for blind faith, He wants his facts to be challanged.
A lot of science is in the bible.
I dont see evolution there.

I wonder how far schools take this? and at what age.

my2girls replied: Yeah, like I said in my other post Gravity is also a theory.
The law (newton's laws) are that because of gravity an object falls to the earth, stays grounded , but no one knows exactly how gravity works, they just know the effects, that is why Gravity is a theory but also a law.

Theory of realitivity is another , same as Theory of plate tectonics, contintental drift.
There are some laws in Science but a lot of theories for everything. A theory can contain laws to make its case.

As far as grade level, since I homeschool I introduced it early and still go over it today. My dd's are in 7th and 5th but I introduced it in 3 grade. I also teach about intelligent design and creationism as well. I try to teach a balance and my dd's can make up their own minds without my or dh's influence.
I was taught about Evolution in 10th grade (1988-89) in a public high school but in my private christian schools (K-8) they said it was of no concern of ours and that it goes againist God's teaching so it wouldn't be taught there, end of story.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: I don't know about you guys, but when my dog does something she knows swhe's not supposed, to, she cowers with her head down and her tail between her legs. She's ashamed. My cat, when I had him, would get peeved at me and pee on my bed in spite, as well as ignore me, when I left him alone overnight.

Seriously...if God is as powerful as to go "poof, I just made a man from dust!" and "look, I just made woman from this rib!" can he/she/it seriously not quit messing around with our ecosystem, can he/she/it not wipe out devastating diseases, and can he/she/it not allow tragedies to happen?

I don't believe it for ONE second. If I want an abracadara poof story, I'll go read Harry Potter. In the meantime, I'll believe scientific studies showing how, where, and why we've evolved over centuries.

jcc64 replied:

Science is based on observable, provable data and evidence. The Bible is, for all of its power and influence, based on faith and parable. Nonetheless, people believe what they want to believe, and hear what they want to hear, so I'm not really sure what the point to this discussion is. Has anyone EVER reconsidered a position based on something said during one of these, my-faith-can-beat-up-your-theory threads??

boyohboyohboy replied:
the point of my thread was to see how people could come to conclusion of believing in both of these two things, when they seem to really contridict each other was my point..
and I have had threads change my mind about things in the past..sorry you felt it was so pointless.

msoulz replied: While I can't say I have ever changed my mind by reading a thread I certainly have been enlightened as to how others think, which helps some of us to be more empathetic towards others. In that respect I find a ton of value in such a thread. I find zero value in folks staunchly defending their perspectives by trashing the ideas of others.

My2Beauties replied:
Jeanne,

Surprisingly I have. Not about faith but I have changed my mind about other things that I would never ever in a million years thought you could change my mind about such as "green" things and eating certain foods (no not placenta ) and cloth diapering etc...but faith is so hard to change. I think she just meant how can one say both?

luvmykids replied:
I think it's a fair question, Stacey, and one you're not alone in asking.

coasterqueen replied:
ITA!

I haven't joined this thread, because I believe myself to be a bit confused on my beliefs. I feel in my heart that I believe in both, but are my feelings right or wrong? Do they contradict? Maybe, not sure. It's a hard one for me to explain, but it's a hard one in general for me because I believe there is a higher being, what I'm not sure. I also believe in evolution. I took a class on this very subject - Evolution vs. Creationism is what it was called. Very interesting class, and it really opened my mind to not only both sides, but because I choose not to believe one over the other, how I can believe more easily that they work together. ETA: I had too many questions for both sides. It will always be hard for me because since there are too many questions on both sides it's too big of a leap of faith for me to say "Yes, there is a God, this bible was written by him and we are supposed to believe it". If I saw him face to face, maybe. But I can say the same for I can't see face to face how we've evolved.

jcc64 replied: Please forgive my other post for sounding so obnoxious, I just re-read it and I can see how you would have felt offended by it. My apologies--that was not my intention.
I for one have had my eyes opened on a huge number of issues here at PC, and I wasn't suggesting that we never debate contentious issues. But when it comes to religious issues in particular, I've never come away from here without feeling judged and I don't ever feel that I can be completely honest about my beliefs without getting slammed b/c there are so many people who feel so strongly that their spiritual ideas are the last word, period, and have said just that to me. That doesn't leave a lot of room for dialogue, was really what my point was, I guess.
I think your original question is a legitimate one, and I guess like you, I also don't understand how one can believe in both. Perhaps I should have said just that and left it alone. My bad.

boyohboyohboy replied: I agree that sometimes, the responses on here do get rather heated..but I thought this particular can of worms was handled well.

I think that people do have strong feelings about faith because what else is there to be excited about other then the reason for exhisting..

I for one keep coming back to PC for these types of discussions..

Hillbilly Housewife replied:

Agreed. I find it's extremely difficult to have a conversation with someone whose faith is so closed that they will hear nothing you say other than to tell you you're wrong and going to hell just because your belief isn't the same as theirs and that they are "just pointing your sins out to you".

I will not discuss with someone who's so entrenched in their faith that the only thing they have to say is the above, and the only thing they have to back it up is scripture that nobody really even knows who wrote in the first place, about things that may or may not have happened thousands of years ago... That's the useless portion of this type of religion based post/debate.... it really doesn't help me to believe in what they say, doesn't offer any insight into what they actually believe as opposed to what they blindly follow, and is quite offensive, actually. Believing in God isn't going to pay my bills, and I'd rather my kids' education teaches them skills needed to survive in this world rather than be spent trying to convince them of "legends".

lisar replied: I really don't know anything about either one of them. So I don't have an opinion on this. Sorry. I just haven't ever read up on either.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
WOW...and you don't think people of faith will find THIS offensive!!!??? When someone uses a term such as "faith is so closed", or "so entrenched in their faith", or "blindly follow"...I find THAT offensive! I don't believe anyone stated an opinion here that is judging anyone elses. I even think I stated "to each is own" a few times. I'm sorry if I and others base our views based on our faith...nobody is judging anyone for basing their views on something else, just merely stating WHY their view is the way it is...so why is it that you need to be so belittling of others who choose to follow their faith instead of "scientific theories or facts"? It goes BOTH ways! Just because someone follows their faith, and states it, doesn't mean they are judging anyone!

At least I can see where Jeanne is coming from, and agree that sometimes it's a lost cause...but at least she used a soft tongue to make her point.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
I'm sorry you're offended, Jennie, but by definition, not being open to any other interpretation of faith is to be "closed" to it... being entrenched in yoru faith is, by definition, being established firmly and securely, and blindly follow - well there's no other way to say it, you're heading down a path that you don't know where it leads, you don't know who set it to begin with, and don't know how it will end - you're following blindly. The words I used weren't meant to be insulting, they are words that are meant to reflect the definition of what I am trying to say.

I am not being belittling, I'm not knowcking anyone for their beliefs, I am saying that it is darn near impossible to talk to people who aren't open to your interpretation, and rather than discuss it, have nothing to add other than that you're wrong, and quote scripture. I don't find that constructive at all, and that is why I won't discuss it.

I didn't mention anything about scientific theories and facts in my above post, nor did I mention judging anyone, so don't take your being insulted about that out on me, please.

luvmykids replied:
That is YOUR opinion of faith....and you've summed it up quite nicely, it is all about believing something by choice without having to have "proof"....whatever you think of that or their choice to do so is your opinion but it doesn't make their beliefs any less valid. I don't care what anyone thinks about the Scripture or who wrote them or what they mean, I know what I believe and I am just as entitled to do so as you are to choose otherwise.

All I'm trying to point out is that as much as it is "legend" to you, it's very real to someone else, and trying to point out the flaw in that is no different than anyone with those beliefs telling you why they disagree with you. It's the same principle, why is it so difficult to see that as offended as you may be, others are as well when you belittle their faith?

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Thank you. I appreciate the apology.

I guess my point is that no matter what side you take, don't we all think that each other is wrong? I mean, that is why we have opinons. If we thought we were wrong, then what good is having an opinion? People think I am wrong for believing in something they don't think exsists, and I think others are wrong for not believing...AND THAT IS OK!

What you are saying about not being able to communicate with someone who follows their faith so wholeheartedly (a positive way to say it )...it is very true of the other side as well. It is very hard to communicate with someone who doesn't want to understand WHY we believe as we do, and what guides our views. So, it's not just one side...it's both.

I have no problem discussing these types of issues with anyone, but as soon as someone gets all bent out of shape about someone stating their belief based on a Biblical principle it's like all hell breaks loose. If someone wants to think that we came from a piece of bologna, I could care less ...ok actually I do "care"...but just because I disagree with them doesn't mean that I am going to think of them as any less of a person. But as soon as someone says "I disgree", some people flip a lid...like it's not ok for people to have their opinion.

I don't know. I am sure my beliefs and some others come out very strong, and that is because I personally (like others) am very passionate about them. It doesn't mean we think less of someone who doesn't agree. It's just simply a respectful disagreement, nothing more...but sometimes people just can't handle to agree to disagree or read something that they disagree with and just leave it alone.

Just to add...I consider pointing fingers and telling someone they are going to hell, judging. So when you said the first portion of your post, that is where I got "judging" from...because to me...that is judging.

Sorry so long. Again, we can just agree to disagree, and thank you for clarifying your post.

MommyToAshley replied: For those of you that point to scientific proof... there's as much scientific evidence that points towards creation as there is evolution, which is probably why they teach both in school. I can go into details if you wish, but I doubt it will change your mind as you will probaby come back with the evidence supporting evolution. You can say noone knows for sure which theory is right, but I suppose that is why it is called faith. I know in my heart what the Bible teaches to be true.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: Glad you understood the spirit of what I was trying to say.

Yes, I agree that both sides think the other is wrong, although I also think that one side is willing to be open about other possibilities whereas the other is not. I don't think that people who have strong faith are wrong, I just won't discuss faith with them if all they can tell me about it is that they're right, I'm wrong, and quote scripture to back it up.

Otherwise, I quite enjoy discussing religion with people who are willing to take the time to explain why, personally, they believe in what they do and are willing to hear and respect my view on it even though they may not agree. I come away from those discussions with a little more wealth in knowledge and understanding, and that, I'm always up for.

MommyToAshley replied:
I don't agree with that stereotype at all. I don't see one side being any more open to discussion over the other. It's a matter of personal character. I have very strong faith but I think of myself as being open-minded. I tend to look and listen to all sides, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them or stray from my faith.

boyohboyohboy replied:
I think that "religion" doesnt allow you to believe in another possibilies, that might be why you feel when you have a conversation with a "religious" person that they are closed to accepting new ideas or possibilities.
I cant say I am a christian and then say I am open to the idea that well, maybe there really isnt a God and I got here some other way..
I dont know how else you can define "faith" with out it being a blind total acceptance of something you cant see or touch..and then how would you make someone else have "faith"?
I also think that there are people on earth that are just not open to hearing about religion. No matter what we say or do. I agree that these people are not able to have an open dialog with a closed heart.
anyway, would you find yourself considering changing your life, following christian rule, if the person who you were learning from changed their minds every time a good theory came their way?
I just thought that the conversation in this thread had stayed at a nice friendly tone until recently. and now appears to be under attack.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
That's more in tune to what I meant... by "both sides" I mean that no matter what "side" of religion you're on - there are people who believe what they believe, but will discuss with others and be open minded to listen to another interpretation, even if it does not agree with their own, and there are people who will just refuse to take anything else into consideration, they believe what they believe, and everyone else is wrong, and that's that. This is all no matter what the belief is, not the bleievers vs. non-believers. I should have been clearer...

Stacy, I am not attacking anyone or their belief. I'm just saying I'm not going to have a religious conversation with someone, if all they can offer in response is that I am wrong, and that's the end of it. If they can tell me, instead, what they believe and why, then I'm more than happy to have a conversation about it....

MommyToAshley replied:
I apologize then, I misinterpreted what you were saying. I read your comments to mean that you think all those that believe in God to be close-minded and you wouldn't hold a religious conversation with them. I agree then... it would do no good to have this conversation (or any debate) with ANYONE that is close-minded.

jcc64 replied:

I would be VERY interested in this proof, Dee Dee. I believe the reason they teach creationism in some schools (they certainly don't teach it here in NY) is related to the political/religious inclinations of the people who sit on the school boards, not because of incontrovertible scientific evidence.
To try and steer this back toward the op, my issue with creationism v evolution is strictly related to its application in public school science classes. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, and no one is required to justify their reasons to me or anyone else. However, science is an academic discipline based on empirical evidence, PROVABLE evidence, and I don't believe that issues of faith belong in a science classroom in a public school. Creationism presupposes the existence of a higher-power, which is not provable in a scientific sense,and if you have some evidence, scientific evidence, please by all means bring it on. It would put to rest 44 years of hard-core contemplation and spiritual confusion on my part. Otherwise, let's leave issues of faith where they belong, in the home and the church, and leave science to the scientists.

Boo&BugsMom replied: They don't teach creationism is our public schools either to my knowledge, and we live in a pretty heavily populated Christian area. In the schools though, they teach evolution as theory, not fact. I have no problem with my children learning about what others may believe, as long as it's not taught as fact.

MommyToAshley replied:
I'll dig up some links for you.

MommyToAshley replied: I remember back when I went to school (a long time ago) they taught both as a theory. Things have probably changed now that it is not politically correct to mention anything dealing with religion except at Church. I studied the Bible in English class as well, but as literary piece of work, not teaching the beliefs. Ashley's class has religious studies but she goes to a private school.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
I never was taught both either back then. Hum. How lucky you were Dee Dee. I think it should be that way, IMO, as long as both are taught as theory. We did however sing a lot of sacred music in choir (they still do at my old high school) and had a lot of extra curriculur groups for different beliefs. People weren't afraid of hearing about what other people believed back then, and why.

MommyToAshley replied: Well, we also said the Pledge and had a minute or two of prayer time... so I am sure things have changed since then.

My2Beauties replied:
Just wondering...they teach both in public schools in your county? They definitely do not touch it here, they only touch evolution and that's it! In college I studied both and how they came about but all my profs always stated over and over again how evolution is proven and "faith" is just that...faith, a lot of what's taught in the bible has never been "proven" to have happened. This is just what I learned, I'm not trying to come back at you, if you have a website or an article proving otherwise, I would love to read it, I like hearing other sides of things.

TheOaf66 replied:
you said the pledge...but that mentions God...they should have shut your school down and any prayer time should have been grounds for a caning

My2Beauties replied:
LOL LOL OMG Jeanne I didn't even read this and we wrote the EXACT same response basically! LMBO!

Boo&BugsMom replied:
There is scientific evidence that points to the "theory" of evolution, but it doesn't make it fact, since it's called the "theory of evolution", not the fact of evolution. At least that is my understanding and what I was taught, and what is taught in our schools. Then there is also scientific evidence of creation, like DeeDee said, that points to the "theory of creation".

I can't offer links like DeeDee can though, but if DeeDee posts them I would love to look at them.

MommyToAshley replied:
I don't have any links bookmarked or anything, as I will have to do some searching but I am sure there are websites out there that have the same information that I have read in books. However, it won't be anything different than you have already learned. Those that believe in creation and those that believe in evolution all have the same evidence. We all have the same layers of earth, the same fossils, the same animals, the same plants, and the same stars in the sky -- the difference is in how the evidence is interpreted. It will just a matter of looking at things neutrally without presumptions one way or the other.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: Either way, creation vs. evolution, we'll never really know.

boyohboyohboy replied:
we are very lucky that out of all the things we complain about in calebs school..that is still says the pledge and they still have a moment of silence, they PRAY for the troops..
and they also have a one day a week optional bible study class where the kids walk to the next door church and have it in their class rooms..this is a public school he attends..

MommyToAshley replied: Here's a few links worth checking out:

http://www.icr.org/article/177/

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-evidence.htm

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/scientific_evidence_gish.html

These are just a few links I found in a really quick search on Google. But, I will look for the book I read a few years back and see if there is a website with info from the author. The book I read did an excellent good job of explaining how all of the scientific evidence points more towards creation than evolution... and it is the same evidence taught in schools to prove evolution.

A&A'smommy replied:
they still teach both her mostly because they have to teach one and the other they do because they want to.. they still pray in school here among other things they aren't "suppose" to do but its except here!!