Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

You don't defend your propositions or even offer evidence for them because you have none. You've pretty much acknowledged that already, but now you try to blame your failure to others. You are well past put up time, bro. Cite the evidence.

There is no need to manufacturer crap in order to generate criticism. The normal stuff you post already draws that stuff.When are you going to get around to posting evidence based discussion instead of just spewing nonsense? All I see you doing right now is preaching and mocking the discussion/criticism you get without responding to it. Then you have the gall to cast aspersions when people tell you that your 'contribution' is not welcomed.

In your opinion, what would have been a proper response to your coin story, or to your explanation of fossil sorting? Even you know that the coin story is no rational reason not to accept carbon dating. We also know that hydraulic sorting is insufficient to explain the order of fossils.If you want some idea of yours to receive some serious consideration, your going to have to do better than repeat discredited ideas that we've heard before. You've come across as a weak whiner from nearly the start of your participation here. You stumbled upon a Evolution vs Creationist debate forum where non acceptance to your ideas should have been expected. But it turns out that your method of debate is to spout mysticism and that you find challenges uncomfortable. Even when we discussed things on your terms you couldn't find evidence or Biblical support for what you were saying. Why are you even on a debate site? You have nothing to offer, and you don't like the easily anticipated response to nonsense.

No. Alpha and beta particles have no effect on decay rates. Where do you get the idea that "the earth radiates alpha and beta particles as if it has a surplus?". The earth contains radioactive materials some of which decay by alpha and beta decay.Neutrons could affect the percentage of C-14 in a sample, and sometimes we do find that to have occurred. But the result is to make samples seem to new and not too old. I can understand that. Quite frankly, what you are describing is the probably pretty common among Creationists. You don't have to understand evolution, cosmology, or carbon dating in any detail to reject them. Because there is no question that those things are inconsistent with your interpretation of Genesis. You probably won't want to get into a debate about this. Your ideas are going to be challenged and evidence is going to be asked for.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Really? You are seriously insisting that as long as you are interpreting scripture, the only way to show that you've erred is by citing more scripture?

"had to contain all the components"?Since there are other possible working models, such as mutations that can provide novel components, you are going to have to do more to establish that your is the only possibility.I know you are convinced, but aren't you trying to convince others? What is your argument against mutation providing the novel components?

The problem is that you are not providing "information that supports" any view. You are just providing the view. If there is some supporting information, by which I mean evidence, please provide a pointer to that. I'd like to read it.

A whole topic devoted to the purpose of inviting us to a urantia web page? No thanks. Rodnas has already told us that he has no intention of persuading. His purpose is more akin to proselytizing.

Isn't Rodnas permanently banned?

All true of course.It's also true that Rodnas spent his time here yanking chains and not responding to the discussion. He was apparently so successful at it that people are still following up a week after he left here.

A problem teaching what science?Science is not just whatever one or more biologists says. Instead it is what one or more scientists can back up or at least demonstrate that he is in the process of backing it up. You have yet to show us that anything you say here rises to the level of hypothesis, let alone theory.So that's the problem teaching your ID-lite in school. It is not science.

In fact, Davidjay (and others here) are totally against science. Science is not just a bunch of facts that happen by hook or crook to be true. Science is the uncovery of truth using the scientific method. If things like Creationism or Intelligent Design were to be taught in science class, the purpose of doing so would be to make contrasts with science.What Davidjay would instead allow to be taught in science are "Flash Facts" (anybody know what those are) that do not challenge the Bible in any way along with the numerology and "Creation Science" he finds to be correct. His inability to state what the scientific method is gives away the game. He surely does not care about why that is taught.

You said that bats and humans possibly branched off from some common ancestor, which any fool would know would not have been a bat or a human, and that the ancestor was likely not a close one.Davidjay likely finds the entire prospect too offensive to comprehend or two respond to. His remarks are similar to the old complaints from fundamentalists that "my grandpa wasn't no monkey". Yeah, well nobody said that either.Beyond that, it appears that his elevator does not go to the top floor. I feel sorry for the dude.