I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm a liberal Christian.

I think the problem with the Creation vs Evolution debate is that it's like trying to have a debate among opponents with entirely different "languages" (actually, more like divergent woldviews). Creationists interpret the world through a lens of faith and adherence to Scripture in a literal sense -- to them, you can argue the science of evolution all day long and it won't change their minds a bit. They will probably just tell you that your faith is weak and this makes you incapable of seeing the truth of their position. On the other hand, the evolution folks interpret the world through empiricism and rationality rather than faith and mysticism. You can quote any verse from the Bible you want, but it won't convince them that God created the World in seven days (although maybe some Christians will harmonize this by thinking of 7 days as a metaphor rather than something to take literally).

Bottom line -- religion and science for me are like non-intersecting planes. They exist independent of one another at times, making them extremely hard to reconcile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have said to my kids that Christians believe the universe was created in seven days, but that is a religious story and science says the universe is about 13.5 billion years old, and I would have added that our family considers science (which is based on observable facts) to be better at answering questions about the world/universe than science. I wouldn't have waited until the woman walked away, but I wouldn't have spoken so that she and her family could necessarily hear me.

We're a multicultural family -- I was raised Christian and became an atheist, DH is from another culture that is largely atheistic but has cultural religious beliefs nonetheless.

I like this answer. It's better than "Those people believe X, others believe Y, go forth and do your own research and decide which you believe." You have a duty to debunk X right away when talking to your children. You need not do it obnoxiously in front of the other family -- no purpose can be served there. But you also need not be hushed about it.

Catholic Christian here....we are not fundamentalists and do not treat the bible as literal. Thanks.

Protestant Christian here...we too are not fundamentalists or literalists. As many others have said, the majority of Christians are not Creationists, nor do they treat the Bible as literal. Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have said to my kids that Christians believe the universe was created in seven days, but that is a religious story and science says the universe is about 13.5 billion years old, and I would have added that our family considers science (which is based on observable facts) to be better at answering questions about the world/universe than science. I wouldn't have waited until the woman walked away, but I wouldn't have spoken so that she and her family could necessarily hear me.

We're a multicultural family -- I was raised Christian and became an atheist, DH is from another culture that is largely atheistic but has cultural religious beliefs nonetheless.

I like this answer. It's better than "Those people believe X, others believe Y, go forth and do your own research and decide which you believe." You have a duty to debunk X right away when talking to your children. You need not do it obnoxiously in front of the other family -- no purpose can be served there. But you also need not be hushed about it.

Catholic Christian here....we are not fundamentalists and do not treat the bible as literal. Thanks.

My sister's inlaws believe that dinosaur bones were planted by the Devil so we would be tricked into believing in evolution. My sister taught her kids not to question their grandparents about their beliefs.

OP, please let me tell you my own story, and maybe it will help you understand the woman's reaction.

I was raised in the christian church. We dutifully went to church every Sunday, and DH and I now take our family to church every Sunday. I believe in God with my whole heart and always have. I had questions about creation in the back of my mind, but never felt that I could ask those questions out loud. I don't know why. My parents would have been fine with it, and my pastor would have been happy to help me. But I still felt ashamed if a doubt would start to cross my mind. Actually I never really admitted to myself that I questioned any of it. I don't believe this was a result of my church's teachings or influence. The church never seemed to indicate that I should repress or feel guilty. It was my own insecurity and fear. this did not change until about a year ago.

Last summer, my children and I wandered into the evolution exhibit at the Natural History museum - same one a pp mentioned. I was extremely uncomfortable and nervous that it would cause my kids to question their faith. We were in and out of there in about 30 seconds. I felt guilty that I had walked in there. DD said "is that what humans used to look like?" and I can't remember what I said, but I made some snide remark undermining the entire exhibit. Yet, I did not question anything else I saw in that museum. A few months later, I was at the zoo, watching the chimps. that same feeling of discomfort came rushing back as I allowed myself to finally notice that they are undeniably similar to us. It made my stomach drop, and again I felt guilty. Mind you, I also have a degree in biology, so I was a walking contradiction. Although I've always felt that God and science can co-exist. I just never really allowed myself to think it through and to really go there.

Over the past several months, I have gotten to a point where I can actually understand how science and religion can co-exist. As a pp said, God created science! The Big Bang Theory happened, yet this phenomenon has never happened again. So my belief is that the BBT was able to happen only with Divine Intervention. That's actually the easy one...

Moving on to those beasts in the museum and the chimp that completely freaked me out. God created us in his likeness, so is God an ape? Were Adam and Eve apes? Then I realize that God gave us the gift of His likeness, but this was bestowed upon us throughout the evolutionary process. Why do I believe that this is Divine and not just science? Well, like the BBT - evolution of man happened at certain points, but then it somehow just stopped. You don't see the occasional human born to an ape at the zoo, and you don't see women giving birth to primates. i'm exaggerating, but hopefully you get my point.

And finally, the one that has bothered me since my 6th grade confirmation class: Six days, really? Even back then, I knew that a day was not likely referring to a 24 hour cycle. But what is a day? I could except that a day might actually be thousands or millions of years, but still not really buying that God created light and then waited thousands of years before creating heaven, and so on. I have now come to believe that a day has nothing to do with chronology, but is just a way of separating/organizing the elements of creation. Perhaps the seventh day refers to all time after the completion, including today.

I could keep going, but you get the picture, I'm sure. It makes sense to me that God used science to create the world rather than taking an abra cadabra approach. He doesn't do that now, so I have no reason to believe He did so back then. For example, I believe that my kids are a gift from God. But I also know that God did not wave a magic wand and I suddenly had a baby in a bassinet in front of me. God gave me my kids through science and nature.

So, my point is that maybe you all will go easy on the next person who does this? They are not stating their beliefs loudly because they wish to bother you or influence your kids. More likely, they are trying to shed the guilt they are feeling over simply hearing/seeing something that contrasts everything they've been taught. And they are trying to immediately discard any doubt/questions this raised in their child's mind. They spoke out because of fear and probably some of their own repressed doubt - not intolerance.

Anyway, this is my journey and how I can relate to the woman. Sorry this was so long. It was kind of therapeutic for me so i got carried away. Please don't bash me, as I do realize that I'm still evolving (no pun intended). I did not post this in order to influence anyone's beliefs. I'm simply trying to give you another perspective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carbon dating, when you go back many years, has never been proven. For lack of a better way to explain it (my grandparents were Harvard/Nasa scientists who explained it to me in layman's terms), there are so few carbons when you go back many many years that the possible margin or error is enormous, i.e., is it 100,000 years old? 1 million years old? 1 billion years old. Who knows - it's essentially only a theory when you go back that far because it has NEVER been verified. We have no dated documents or other dated evidence from millions of years ago with which to verify.

The age of the earth is not estimated by carbon-14 dating. Radiometric dating is used -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Radiometric_dating.

Carbon dating will give good results for objects up to 50,000 years. It is a scientific, proven method that has been calibrated and verified, for example with old tree rings.

Same difference. Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating. Plus, again, neither has been verified as dating anything hundreds of thousands or millions or billions of years old.

If you look at the quoted wikipedia article, you will see "Radiometric dating continues to be the predominant way scientists date geologic timescales. Techniques for radioactive dating have been tested and fine-tuned for the past 50+ years. Forty or so different dating techniques have been utilized to date, working on a wide variety of materials. Dates for the same sample using these different techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material." and "The radiometric date of meteorites can be verified with studies of the Sun. The Sun can be dated using helioseismic methods that strongly agree with the radiometric dates found for the oldest meteorites.[30]"


If multiple methods (40!) are giving the same result, what reason do you have for doubting it? Do you know of any scientific evidence that gives a much smaller age than about a billion?

You quote Wikipedia. You talk about the sun.

My grandfather was a physicist at NASA - he worked on Apollo. He even built observatories from scratch (including inventing his own method of lens making, missle systems too, etc. . .). Even his work on Apollo is patented. My grandmother was a chemist. I cite scientists, not Wikipedia.

I'm sorry, despite your grandparents' credentials, you have no clue what you are talking about. Scientists do not use CARBON dating to determine the Earth's age, they use isotopes with longer half-lives....like URANIUM. Yes, carbon dating does not work for things that are billions of years old, BUT, uranium does.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/3/l_033_01.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

Maybe your grandparents had gone senile by the time they got around to explaining it to you, or maybe, you're not intelligent enough to understand and that why you had to drop out of your computer science program?

Whether it's radiometric testing of carbon versus uranium emissions, it's all radiometric testing of particle emissions. Either way, testing for uranium versus carbon, dating back that far, there is no way to verify. It has never been verified that ANYTHING is a million or billion years old - EVER. No scientist in the world has ever done so, not even I'm guessing anything more than 20,000 years ago (as I think some religious calendars go back that far).

Anonymous wrote: First of all, in science, "THEORY" = NOT PROVEN. JUST AN IDEA.

That's not what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is an explanation for observable phenomena that is supported by evidence, and has been confirmed by observation and experiment. It's not just an idea. It's an idea that has significant amounts of evidence behind it.

Creationism isn't a theory in the scientific sense because it isn't supported by scientific evidence. I don't really have a problem with people who say "I believe the bible, over scientific evidence, and thus ascribe to a religious explanation of how life came to exist on Earth in it's current state". If you believe that, I'd say "that's fine, I don't happen to agree, but I can respect your point of view." But when someone tries to justify a belief in creation by deliberately distorting the meaning of terms, or claiming scientific evidence when there is none, then that'd either dishonesty or stupidity, and I have no respect for either.

Anonymous wrote:OP, as most of the posts here show, it is always best to approach these kinds of things with tact, respect and kindness.

A little courtesy goes a long way, even if you don't agree with someone else's strongly held beliefs.

This. Of course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've been pretty good at not bashing anyone personally, but what's it gonna take to get it through your thick skull that I'm not the "horrible way of life poster" to which you keep referring?!? You are aware that there are more than two people on DCUM, right? But way to make assumptions...

Yeah, we totally believe that you're a mature person who would never engage in ad hominem attacks.... You are, however, the poster who uses ellipses incorrectly.

What on... earth.... are you... talking about? (Damn, now I'm channeling William Shatner in my head.) Sorry if you don't like my use of the ellipsis. Perhaps you could put together a DCUM Manual of Style. I'm sure we could all benefit from your grammatical wisdom and wonder.

But way to dodge my point. I'm not the poster to which you keep referring. As mentioned, there is more than one poster who is less than impressed with you. I'm the reform Jew poster loves her Christian husband and who sadly was not voted Official Spokesperson of all Jews. I am not, however, the Muslim "horrible way of life poster" that you are obsessed with.

You really don't see how you undermined your own post? It might help you to look up "ad hominem," even though this second post proves your mastery of the ad hominem attack. And boy, you sure could use help with ellipses....

I assure you that I know the meaning of "ad hominem" but is there any reason why you won't address the issue that you keep accusing me of another poster's posts? Do I really need to break out additional ellipses...? Tick tock...

OP, as most of the posts here show, it is always best to approach these kinds of things with tact, respect and kindness.

A little courtesy goes a long way, even if you don't agree with someone else's strongly held beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've been pretty good at not bashing anyone personally, but what's it gonna take to get it through your thick skull that I'm not the "horrible way of life poster" to which you keep referring?!? You are aware that there are more than two people on DCUM, right? But way to make assumptions...

Yeah, we totally believe that you're a mature person who would never engage in ad hominem attacks.... You are, however, the poster who uses ellipses incorrectly.

What on... earth.... are you... talking about? (Damn, now I'm channeling William Shatner in my head.) Sorry if you don't like my use of the ellipsis. Perhaps you could put together a DCUM Manual of Style. I'm sure we could all benefit from your grammatical wisdom and wonder.

But way to dodge my point. I'm not the poster to which you keep referring. As mentioned, there is more than one poster who is less than impressed with you. I'm the reform Jew poster loves her Christian husband and who sadly was not voted Official Spokesperson of all Jews. I am not, however, the Muslim "horrible way of life poster" that you are obsessed with.

You really don't see how you undermined your own post? It might help you to look up "ad hominem," even though this second post proves your mastery of the ad hominem attack. And boy, you sure could use help with ellipses....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've been pretty good at not bashing anyone personally, but what's it gonna take to get it through your thick skull that I'm not the "horrible way of life poster" to which you keep referring?!? You are aware that there are more than two people on DCUM, right? But way to make assumptions...

Yeah, we totally believe that you're a mature person who would never engage in ad hominem attacks.... You are, however, the poster who uses ellipses incorrectly.

What on... earth.... are you... talking about? (Damn, now I'm channeling William Shatner in my head.) Sorry if you don't like my use of the ellipsis. Perhaps you could put together a DCUM Manual of Style. I'm sure we could all benefit from your grammatical wisdom and wonder.

But way to dodge my point. I'm not the poster to which you keep referring. As mentioned, there is more than one poster who is less than impressed with you. I'm the reform Jew poster loves her Christian husband and who sadly was not voted Official Spokesperson of all Jews. I am not, however, the Muslim "horrible way of life poster" that you are obsessed with.

Anonymous wrote:So God may exist but there's 100% absolutely no way anyone could possibly make any valid argument that the earth is not a billion years old?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. As science continues to solve the mysteries of creation, more evidence of what the truth MIGHT be will come to light. Unlike the Bible, which will have its talking snake forever.

WRONG. (you missed my prior posts.)

There is no scientific way to PROVE whether something is a billion years old. Do you have a time machine? No - you cannot verify whether a stone is really a billion years old. We have no billion year old documents or art or anything to use to date objects. And the margin of error in dating back that far is enormous. 100,000 years old. 1 million years old. 1 billion, 100 billion, you cannot be sure. It's far from proven or accurate. That IS the science.

Secondly, since when did science solve the mysteries of creation. Are you referencing the Big Bang Theory (like "BANG," then life started). First of all, in science, "THEORY" = NOT PROVEN. JUST AN IDEA. Secondly, so far, there is no lab in the world that can bang two non-living things together and make a living thing, not even one living amoeba. That's impossible. Believing God created life is, frankly, a more logical explanation.

Wow. 11 pages and maybe 5 people actually answered the question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter and I overheard a similar conversation while watching the short film about the evolution of mammals at the natural history museum. She interrupted the film several times to loudly proclaim how she didn't believe any of it.

I had the discussion with my child afterwards because I didn't want to be rude and interrupt the film for everyone else. My daughter kept looking to me when Rude Smithsonian Visitor would start talking. I'm sure she could see that I was annoyed with that person.

Sounds like you handled it like a mature adult. Your kid learned two things from you: your beliefs, and how to handle disagreements.

Here's my favorite post from this thread, tongue in cheek of course: "She started it, so you should defanitely one-up her and make an obnoxious and loud comeback. Yeah, that'll teach everyone a lesson and you'll feel great as a person and mom. Tell her DCUM sent you."

I was extra annoyed with the person because she went into The Evolution Theater (actual name) to watch a film about evolution, only to act like that.