Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

That answer is part of the evolution/atheist regime. The other half of America does science as well without imbibing swamp stories.

You don't know what I know, all you know is your world with its perimeters, everything outside of that is a lie to you. Now that's not the mind of a true thinker or scientist.
I gave the story of the coin dating as a trigger to help the 'scientists' blow their steam off, giving them an opportunity to run me over with a bulldozer full of regular words. Seemed necessary to you didn't it? And why is that?
Is your world so false and fragile that it needs to run down anything that comes near it?Whatever comes out of their mouth is predictable, like the average text book.

The science world, apart from nature itself, is the m o s t b o r i n g place in the universe, the only way they can get any attention is with rocket science or with celebrity scientists, even so the numbers are right down, and it costs billions.And why is that? Codependent intellectualism. Passing around the hand downs. Boring. Incredibly boring.Why is science so boring?

What will you feel and say when your world of conclusions is proven wrong?
Not if, when.

Carbon dating is the holy grail of evolution. It's entire structure rests on that poor brick ...

So why not introduce the topic of dating with a holed story?

The coin story is true ...

The very fact that the argument has turned from the thread subject to the disputes over the two fields of thought, together with mud slinging and proof calling, shows that the opposition to creationism, is unable to focus on the subject at hand.

You claim that there is no evidence for creationism and so demand it. But I am aware that to a large degree you are not open to that evidence, but only to information that seems to agree with popular sanctions on evolution.
Evolution theory is just a way of looking at things. It's a point of view, and it sees what it does for evidence of itself. just because it is widely accepted, including by intellectuals of high standing, does not mean it is flawless, or even altogether true.Creationism does not have to find evidence, because everything that exists, is proof of creation, rather than snippets from nature.Once a person or society has decided to go down a certain track of philosophy which includes denial of the Creator, it is nigh impossible for them to see any evidence of truth outside of their head space. This also happens in false religion and in nearly every challenge the human mind faces.The only way to prove this point is to have two groups of schools, and universities, one which teaches creationism in the full sense, not half way as many denominations take it, and have the other schools strictly the regular teachings of evolution.Then the results can be compared in the students, for aptitude, achievements, intuition, practical skills, and every facet of learning including emotional, physical and mental balance.

Once a person or society has decided to go down a certain track of philosophy which includes denial of the Creator, it is nigh impossible for them to see any evidence of truth outside of their head space. This also happens in false religion and in nearly every challenge the human mind faces.

The only way to prove this point is to have two groups of schools, and universities, one which teaches creationism in the full sense, not half way as many denominations take it, and have the other schools strictly the regular teachings of evolution.

Two men in an identical situation.
The beautiful and faithful wives, have left the house unoccupied when the husband arrives home.
They have left a love note on the fridge, indicating that she has gone to town for the dry cleaning and won't be back until 8 pm.
There's a warm dinner in the oven and desert in the fridge.The men come home each to their own identical house.Husband A is totally delighted, that the house is so well run, and there are signs of her love everywhere, the whole house is a place of love.Husband B is a weak man, and does not notice anything, and gobbles the food down.9 pm and she does not arrive. There's a weather storm.A does not finish his meal, reads the note again, when the phone rings, he picks it up and it is cut. He decides to wait for 15 minutes and then drive to meet her.B freaks out about the lightning and gets a knot in his stomach, decides to look for an aspirin to settle himself and finds the note on the fridge. The phone rings and he picks up the phone when it goes dead. He notices the house is all tidy, and suspects she has left him for good. And in anger rips the phone out, trashes the kitchen, and burns the note. (the French revolution)A decides to meet her when the phone rings (1844 AD) she'll be home in two minutes.B has no phone, and decides that she never loved him, and as far as he is concerned she is as good as dead.A's wife enters the door and there's total happiness.B's wife could not contact him by phone, she finds the house trashed and a drunk on the lounge.Both had the same evidence.

So if the beta decay is increased somehow while the carbon is in the ground, then we will have the reading for a very old bone.
The earth radiates alpha and beta particles as if it has a surplus, could this process accelerate the decay rate while the object is buried? A rate which is far slower in lab conditions?

I still assume it is wrong because I have studied the global flood as a hobby, and it adds up fine.

I initially came here thinking that there would be a fair trial for creationism, but soon found out I am up against a brick wall.

There was no communication, just slapping around whatever I said, so how would anyone respond? Most people just leave.

You are right, it does not help my stand at all. I knew that, but my degradation would have been no different had I produced the evidence which would have been refuted on the basis of preconceived ideas which dominate the thinking and reasoning.

What you are saying is that evolution cannot be wrong because C14 dating proves it.

That is the current opinion in the science world ...

I have said from the start that I agree with science and its method of deduction and analysis, but not its conclusions of evolution, and other theories.

The same goes for the rest of you, sealing your own destinies by what you have sown.

The topic here is about creation/evolution, I offer scientific information about creation, it is rejected a priori by ignoramuses like you (read my books), so the discussion ends here.