I've pretty much always been a Christian, I went to a private Christian school for a year, I've been going to church since I was little (sadly, I've been going less nowadays).
I even took a "spirituality class" at my church to become a member and be baptized two years ago.
But I've also been to a different private school before I went to the Christian school, and there we watched a movie on Charles Darwin and learned of evolution and natural selection ect ect ect...

So having had both ideas thought over and studied, I feel like somehow there is truth to both...
Like maybe God really was the force that made the bacterium, then primates,Neanderthals , Home sapiens ect. And maybe it was just left out of the Bible (there have been many many stories ect that have been left out of the Bible due to lack of "evidence")

Do you think it's possible for both theories to be true... or can only one be true and one be false..or do you think they're both false (if so please explain)

tornadocam : I think that you might be a bit unclear as to the term species. We have seen one species change into another more than once. For things to be a different species, that means they cannot produce an offspring together that is able to reproduce as well. So for example, you have 3 salamanders (A, B, C). Salamander A and B can mate and produce an offspring that is can also reproduce. A and B are the same species. Salamander C mates with Salamander A and no offspring can be made. A and C are different species. C mates with B, produces an offspring, but the offspring is sterile every time. C and B are different species. Kind of like how a tiger and a lion can produce a baby, but the baby is always sterile, so lions and tigers are different species.

We have seen species change in organisms before. One more recent one was an urchin. A   single species of urchin lived in more than one area. But some of the urchins in one of those locations migrated to colder waters. Not all, just some. The ones that stayed and the ones that migrated elsewhere were both observed for a long stretch of time. After a while, the ones that went to colder waters started to adapt different behaviors, their spikes shortened over generations, their coloration changed, and even their maturity periods changed. But that does not mean 'new species'. What was found out, however, is that when urchins that moved to colder waters were put with the urchins that stayed in warmer waters, those 2 could still mate, but could not produce offspring. So we witnessed a bran new species of urchin emerge. 

What I hear constantly is that 'okay, but it is still an urchin. It isn't like the urchins started giving birth to seahorses'. That is true, but not even how Evolution works. We clearly saw that these urchins started making changes after going to new environments. So much that their genetic code no longer matched up correctly to be able to make offspring with their former ancestors. Now is it that far fetched of an idea to assume that if, through millions of years, hundreds of thousands of migrations, hundreds of thousands of new conditions, etc, that more and more changes would be made. When you have hundreds and thousands of tiny subtle changes, wouldn't there be a point where the changes were so numerous that you wouldn't even classify them as the same animal if you compared the two? Over a span of less than 20 years, there was already a new coloration, shorter quills, less quills. What if we kept studying these. What if the quills continued to shorten. We already know they can, as we have observed it. So it isn't far fetched to think it possible for the quills to shorten to the point to where there are none. Would you even call it an urchin anymore? 

You are right in thinking that a creature doesn't simply change into another. A fish doesn't just give birth to a dog. Only one who really doesn't understand evolution would make that argument. What it states is that one species continuously changes as it inherits traits from parents, as you state that you believe. When you compare generations over thousands of years, you only get subtle differences. For example, in humans, we have a lot of different races. No human ethnicity is more evolved than another because we all have been living for the same amount of time. Just adapted to different conditions. But over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, if you take a creature of the present that had all those generations to go through hundreds of thousands of very subtle changes, and compare it to it's  "Great X 10^10,000 grandparent, they are not going to look remotely alike. Likely wouldn't even be able to mate with that generation and make an offspring. Evolutionary speaking, animals do not change into another, per say. Evolutionary speaking, all animals on this planet are all the same (kingdom animalia), and have just changed over time in accordance to its environment. Being different things is all a matter of a labeling system that humans invented in order to make distinctions. 

a-sassy-black-lady : I'm just like you, I believe the bible is a lie, but the 10 commandments are true and god exists. I also believe in god controlling the universe, I want to spread my idea as much as I can. First of all nothing is beyond the limits of the universe, just an empty realm without time and space. It's always existed, there was no beginning nor will there be an end. Sound familiar to someone? Also the universe was created from a molecular atom-sized "egg". This "egg" expanded trillions and trillions of times its size. It was filled with matter, material forming everything we know, and anti-matter, the complete opposite of matter. The matter and antimatter collided and destroyed each other, but there was just enough matter to surpass the antimatter, causing the universe to expand and everything in it to form. But if nothing was there to even MAKE this egg in the first place? I believe god lives outside the universe watching over everything. If there wasn't god how would science even make sense? It fits together perfectly, but that's only my theory.