Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

No, creationISM is a contempt for science - which you have admitted to having - and the attempt to prove that science is wrong. It has always failed to do so.The belief in a creator is not creationISM unless it sets itself in opposition to science. Your approach on this forum has been to parrot Points Refuted A Thousand Times. You have never made an attempt to seriously discuss how stupid those points are. I have suggested to you several times that you should pick one topic and discuss it. This running around from topic to topic and blathering nonsense isn't impressing amybody - except maybe your teachers.

The distance to SN1987A was measured by trigonometry, not parallax.

He is just a troll. When you try to read his nonsense it's pretty convincing evidence that he has never had a teacher who was qualified to teach.

That's an unwarranted slur against teachers. I doubt the best teacher in the world could teach him anything. He knows it all already. Tres Trumpian.

Oh, I agree. I meant that he writes and thinks as if he never had a teacher. Dunning—Kruger effect.

Using a base line from this solar system consisting of millions of miles of space...and time.Using trig to make the line to the star equal with the base line is using belief that there is time and space at all points that are the same. That is religion with a trig dress on.

You have not even really addressed the issues let alone offered anything to refute.
You offer religion and beliefs and attitude.Creation believers have the right and duty to question whacked out worldly wise men making weird and baseless anti creation claims.

That's what I'm telling you. Pick an issue. Address that issue. Read the responses. Reply to the responses. But they don't have the ability. You can't question something intelligently if you don't understand it - and you clearly don't understand page one of your elementary school science book.Your complaints are very shallow. Dig deeper.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing, and here's a copy of the home game for you.

I am right you are wrong. Feel free to demonstrate how parallax trig does not use a base line from the solar system. Ha.

Empty blather aside, feel free to post some point that you can actually support and discuss. This is not a thread about trying to sound tuff.

You're the one who claims that science is wrong. You pick a topic and refute it.

The distance to SN1987A was not measured by parallax. As I noted. The baseline was the distance from the supernova to the surrounding ring of debris. Feel free to Google up some of the clear explanations.

Look it up...a parallax measure has a base line. If you claim otherwise, do more than buzz around.

The distance to SN1987A was not measured by parallax. Do try to keep up.