Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

oh pullleeeaaasssssseeee...go split your hairs with someone else. and of course you willingly miss the point and distort the reality. it does not prove what you say, it proves that you cannot trust science or its methods but those who are too unwillingly to open their minds and recieve the truth about their chosen 'authority' they just add more evidence to my point. of course not, science rejects God's ethics and morality, what did you expect? a field that omits the supernatural to hold to supernatural morality? you are certainly duped to think that secular ideas of ethics trump Godly ones.keep in mind, you cannot trust something that is always changing. when such is applied to humans, they are called 'unstable' and shunned by the more 'stable' members of the community. you cannot change the definition froma negative to a positive simply because it is applied to a field you like.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

your reaction to contradiction is normal because no one likes to feel that their chosen authority is wrong and does things the wrong way. your reactions are all very emotional and unscientific.here is a sample of an alternative scientific method: hypothesis: guns and bullets may kill people.experiment: scientist takes gun and bullet in hand. puts bullet in chamber , aims at lab assistant and pulls the trigger. lab assistant falls down dead.observational notes& conclusion: guns and bullets do indeed kill people, no need of further testing on humans.Objective: next experiment--use gun and bullets on live animals.you do not need to be a scientist to learn about or experiment with something. scientists have conjured up this elite mentality that only they and their field can accomplish anything in this regard. they are wrongtake for example the field of archaeology. the majority of its discoveries come from normal non-profressional people not the professional archaeologist who has spent years studying ancient languages and his/her field. this is the reason i do not take most of you seriously, my quoted article was written in 2001 and it is just plain common sense to think that in the last 9 years a machine could have been invented to measure such small items BUT it doesn't change the fact that scientists do not follow their own rules {and fib about their discoveries} and i doubt they do now even with all their new machinery.face it, science is rife with those who do not do things the scientific method and they are not christians or peons and they teach their conclusions and experiments/discoveries to the unsuspecting student.try to be honest with yourselves instead of attacking me.

no,it is not false, you just want it to be. as for failing the so-called objective tests the supernatural does not act upon demand by the unchurched world andit is no surprise that they or you did not get the response you wanted.keep in mind that years ago an i.q. test was given to some students. some were white and others black. the black kids all failed, does that mean there are no intelligent black people in america or the world? no, it just means the test was geared for white people. it was surmised that if a black i.q. test were given to white students, they would all fail it.you hide behind your tests and refuse to check the honesty of them or if you have the right questions or attitude. the supernatural did not fail, you and your fellow scientists have. you confuse 'new evidence' with truth and that is not always the case. you forget the mitigating factors like peer jealousy, peer fabrication and you have forgotten to learn your lessons from the myriad of hoaxes that plaque the evolutionary field.the truth never changes, one may discover it but it has always been the truth from the beginning. oh and 'truth' is a theological issue not a scientific one so your methods may not work in finding it.

yes i have and i have also been told by atheists and evolutionists that these giys are not credible.i am well aware of the fact that anti-biblical people will use those guys and other examples when it benefits them then discredit the same when it benefits them.so do not take it wrong when i dismiss your mentioning of them because the anti-biblical crowd are rarely honest in their presentations and use of examples.

your selective use of the scientific method is noted as we all know that the peer review system is faulty. many scientists who are sent papers to check, do not repeat the experiments or even read them. then th eeditors doing the selection can manipulate the results by selecting the scientists they want to review them--depending on what answer they want.don't give me this idea that the scientific method is working or is perfect or above board.it is not. and later i will try to hunt down some articles to post to that back up my point. your idealization of the 'scientific method' undermines your credibility a whole lot.

i was going to reply to the preceeding few posts but since they ignore the rules and make false accusations i will ignore them. there is no point in discussing issues with those whose only defense is 'you lie'.it is not scientific, it is not academic and it certainly is very rude. the so called other archaeologist knows full well that the best and most discoveries come from unprofessionals but he seems to be the jealous type, like eric cline, and tries to hide that fact.to name a couple such discoveries, the dead sea scrolls, the nag hammadi library and the list continues. it is very clear that the anti-biblical crowd ignores all the rules they want to hold me to which is why they cannot achieve the goal posted by the admin.if he can't keep them in line then he should not try and keep creationists in line for a double standard and hypocrisy ruins everything he is trying to do and destroys the credibility of his forum.if science disagrees with the Bible then science is wrong.

if evolutionuists and atheists want evolution in the classroom then they need to remove it from the science labs and into general history.there are too many questions that they cannot answer, nor will they ever be able to answer which disqualifies their theory from being considered legitimate and a viable option to creation as found in Gen. 1 &2.i would post those questions here but i am sure they would get the same non-scientific and rude responses i have been getting all along.if the anti-biblical people can't follow their own rules they have no business being involved in any discussion

the bible never teaches that the earth has corners, where does it say the earth stopped spinning? you will need to provide chapter and verse to show the actual teaching of those ideas. very funny, well a little funny but not correct. science is a fallible field, prone to the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin and run by men under the same curse and deals with limited an dmanipulated data, deceived thinking and much more.it would not be wise to listen to science when those same men could care less about you and were not present when the world was created. it is impossible for secular science to determine what happened 2,000 years ago let alone last week so they cannot say what took place when the universe originated. especially when they leave God out of the picture.in all of the experiments conducted , post those with links that have actual observation of the actual event. hypothesis and modern day experiments do not cut it for the conditions are different and their conclusions would be off.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

so you think God is so weak He could not keep everything as it should be until the sun started moving again? miracles cannot be analyzed by science and science cannot pass judgment upon mirales because it does not understand them nor wants to. the problem lies not with the biblical passage but with science and those who participate in its field.that is the way it is with the supernatural it does not go according to earthly or scientific logic , thinking or rules. which is why faith with discernment is very important because science doesn't have the answers and is too limited in its scope. science cannot dictate to God, God dictates to science--my ways are not your waysis a very good clue in understanding how futile relying on science is.God can do what He wants with the earth and science cannot claim otherwise, if the world stopped spinning then it stopped spinning and God protected everyone or gravity doesn't depend upon the earth spinning and since science cannot figure out how gravity works, it is best if it refrained from speaking on the subject. {The Final Theory pg.15}the passage does not indicate that the sun revolves around the earth, it just means that the writer of joshua used words that everyone can understand and they are the same words we use today in everyday life. i wouldn't read into what you do not understand.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

that is not micro-evolution at work but reproduction within one's kind and inside the boundaries of genetic rules and design. secularists cannot conceive of the varieties that God has implanted in His designs or the possibilities the genes He created can carryout.{p.s. the book i have been reading on genes is called Genome and a link to the falsifying of DNA is here:Lab creates fake DNA evidence - Scientific American Blog Networkand if you want more then go to this link:http://search.yahoo.com/..._ylt=AuTcJAU9LMGmKl2OvE6Dqr.evZx4

no it is not.

to say reproduction is micro-evolution is over generalizing an nonexistent process. all you have done is taken the reality of life and slapped a secualr science label over it and made the definition of the label fit what you want it to cover.you also ignore the fact that how God designed genes to operate will allow for some change but that is due to the combination not a process. i know that you all call evolution in any form- change but that is incorrect and is just a blanket definition to get around things you cannot explain.if the process of evolution were true, there would be no need for reproductive systems and the process would not know to carry on till it got reproductive organs, it would not know how to design them, and why make the women's vaginal canal so small so that she feels pain--are you going to tell a pregnant woman that she feels pain because she hasn't fully evolved?---good luck with that one.the details of life are too complicated to be left to a process that has no morals, no creativity, no knowledge, no thinking, no feeling, no strength, no guidance... etc.then to say these things came out of nothing, like life or the universe, well that that is more of a fairy tale than God, who has morals, creativity, knowledge, thinking, feelings, strength, guidance...etc. creating everything from His power.

this will be my final post in the science forum as the response demands an answer. from now on find me in the non-science forums and discuss with me there: no, such actions are attributed to micro-evolution, and there is no way to prove that process even exists, let alone responsibl;e for the changes that take place. no it hasn't. it has assumed, attribted, extrapolated, speculated, conjectured but it has never observed or explained evolution. if life started on its own, it certainly did not need an invisible process to alter its mechanism of producing life and make it the same as the Biblical way. have you ever noticed how close the evolutionary theory has changed to be more like th eBible--that is because if it didn't, people would stop believing in the theory. and you want to trust something that doesn't know anything yet guides life to all these creative varities? why would you follow something that didn't know anything and provided nothing? no security or hope in that. so you put your faith in nothing then. not smart. no,it was a curse from God because of eve's sin. we have a reasonable and legitimate answer that explains it all plus shows that women do not get away from being punished in God's kingdom whenthey commit sin.that tells us that God is fair, just and will discipline whereas with the theory of evolution, you have no answer, no reason, no justice, no discipline, and so on. i willtake the Bible over evolution any day. God did not design it that way, He changed it to be that way because eve sinned. it is a good leson for women to learn , that if they sin, they cannot bat their eyes, lower their blouse to show cleavage, hike a skirt and be allowed to skate punishement with God and it makes men feel better for they know that womenwill be punished like they are when they sin. kind of keeps the relationships on an even keel, don't you think?

i propose that evolution NOT be taught at all. after all as one evolutionist pointed out, evolutionary scientists use 'artificial experiments' to make their case. artificial does not mean real: in fact i know that evolutionary scientists have NOT replicated one claimed change by the process of evolution. they can't for they do not know the original conditions that brought upon the claimed changes, they do not know all the failed attempts by the process to achieve said claimed changes, they do not know how those changes came about.plus they themselves are not part of the original conditions which means any experiment for evolution is moot, for scientists did not create those claimed changes in the actual process of the supposed evolution nor brought the original claimed changes to existence.in other words, they are nor 'repeating one change' which means evolution is disqualified from the scientific classroom.