Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Sure you can. Just bring evidence. Reliable, verifiable evidenceThat's the one thing you haven't tried.

No, the scablands are not older, they're younger. As I said. your timing is wrong, you need to rethink it.

You are basing your opinion on belief. It is unfortunate, as you can't rethink that.I've been to the Channeled Scablands, and studied them while in graduate school. I did my MA thesis on a very old archaeological site in the Scablands, one with a continuous record of human habitation going back 12,000 years. There was no flood during that time.So don't try to pawn your beliefs off on me, as I've been there and seen the evidence for myself. And I helped, in a small way, to create that evidence.All you have is belief, and that's pretty thin gruel.

Alternatively, maybe you don't know much about science, and are unable to foretell the future. I'm just guessing here, but ... is it possible that you're neither a scientist nor a prophet?

Perhaps we should apply the same principle to other subjects. Geography, for example. There are different points of view as to what the capital of Australia is --- most people think it's Sydney, but a sizable minority hold out for Canberra. So what are we to teach?

Going by the responses on this thread, the two subjects are incompatible and would only cause controversy.
Unless religious beliefs are totally watered down and submissive to the great god of science. Which of course they have been doing in a hurry since the end of the reformation.
The pope officially (officially- because it is a political institution) condones evolution and accepts it as fact, proving that he is fallible as those who were burned at the stake thought.

Oh definitely Sydney, Canberra is just a big roundabout with hot air coming from a white building on the median.

I suggest that there is no way a person could ever know the age of a geological formation by being there or studying it, no matter what methods you use. The only way you could ever know its age is if you had a witness there at the time of the formation you are studying. You are fooling yourself if you think your studies showed you its age.On the other hand we have the testimony of the best and most trustworthy witnesses that put the Flood about 4300 years ago and all the facts hang together very nicely. Including the whole appearance of the scablands and the understanding of how they resulted from a local flood. Therefore all estimates for the age of scablands that are not younger than the Flood are wrong and need to be rethought. You try to dismiss it as "belief" as if that means something, but that's an empty idea.

I agree, and does it makes sense to have evidence of a mega-catastrophe, if it didn't happen?Now if there was no fossil record or column, they would argue the following: "If there was a worldwide flood, where is all the evidence? Where are all the dead organisms of every type, showing everything on earth perished, where are animals preserved while they were living?"You might think, "that's not fair, how can you know I would argue that, as an atheist?" Because you argue that missing footprints in the wilderness means there was no Exodus. You argue that secular-scientific versions of evidence for God, don't exist, and demand we provide it. You define miracles as, "things that have not happened" and then say, "show me one that has happened."In short, I infer this about many athe-evos, because it would perfectly fit with their previous behaviour. Consistent behaviour would almost certainly make them argue that there should be a record of mass-preservation. We have one, and they tell us it's all a belief. In that case I guess I only imagined the fossils. You see, a lot of evolution-indoctrination, has made many believe that evidence of a flood isn't evidence of a flood. But the evidence is still evidence consistent with a flood, in many, many, areas, as you can read in the below link.The evidence for catastrophe is overwhelming, lots of fossils are preserved in the 'death-throws', the suffocation-position, they are also captured in time in the middle of living, eating, fighting, etc....also with sediment in their throats. We would also expect to see every kind of organism or at least a huge percentage of many varieties, if everything on earth was wiped out. we would also expect mythical handed-down tales of the flood to exist in various myths around the world, if humanity spread out from Babel.Here is a good overview of the flood, through some common subjects that are brought up, as you can see there are good, cogent PHD-written answers, expounding the flood-evidence, the search engine will also reveal many particular examples of evidence that would "fit" with a flood;Noah's Flood Questions and Answers - creation.comTo say none of this is evidence consistent with a flood is like saying that scars on your body are not evidence of cuts in the past.Logically, the evolutionist is 100% wrong, if he PRETENDS that there is no evidence consistent with a global flood. Confirmation evidence abounds and is prolific, there are many cogent arguments for it. To say there is "no evidence" and it's, "all belief" is to argue to the extreme. It would be like me saying the following, "no, atheism is not true, because atheists don't exist".In denying the obvious evidence that would fit with a flood, this shows a great level of denialism. In the past we see creationists, and some even now, that will argue-to-the-extreme by pretending that no change at all happens, no speciation. When folk argue to the extreme, intellectually they are showing a great big sign that says: "BIAS rules me - and I will accept NOTHING you say - and deny every argument that would favour your belief, even if that argument makes sense".What's amusing is actually reading the people that make these extreme arguments, committing intellectual suicide without knowing it, because they don't even know what "evidence" is yet. People who know what "evidence" is would never argue there is, "no evidence" for something, because they are aware that there is always SOME evidence that will "fit" with many theories.Folk on boards like this will use a lot of bluff and bluster and rhetorical codswallop to try and fudge over the obvious evidence that fits with a flood.It's no use trying to turn people that are riddled with bias and are indoctrinated. It's like trying to reason with a mob.(I advise those who think we only "believe" in a flood to show us how the evidences mentioned, do not exist). Please read the link given, addressing many evidences that fit nicely with a world-flood, and are explained by it. Or are you saying these PHD guys are inventing consistent evidence? My only response to that is a resounding, LOL!!!Just be honest - you don't study what the creation scientists say, the genuine ones with PHDs, because you want to concentrate on making out we don't exist, no cogent arguments exist, and we are all like hovind. How honest of you, how objective!

But my opinion related to the Biblical flood is not opinion but conclusion supported by over 200 years of evidence.You are free to believe that one of the Biblical floods happened but in doing so you are simply incorrect.

That is how brainwashing works, and (curiously) how religion works: repetition of belief (opinion not based on fact or reason). Still wrong. It appears that your only way to conceive of learning is based on this dogma model used by religious teaching, that the power of the argument lies in how it massages your beliefs not whether it can be tested and validated by objective empirical evidence. A rather apt description of what happens when cognitive dissonance overwhelms belief and the belief is rejected because of the contradicting evidence being too overwhelming.Also an apt description of the epiphany people go through when they realize their YEC beliefs were wrong ... as evidenced by testimony of many people that have visited this forum. Oh I do enjoy the debate, but I also enjoy the thanks I get for helping people see what reality has to say. Yes the knowledge gained by the scientific method is snowballing, knowledge we gain leads to new theories that lead to new knowledge of how the universe works: that is why science overturns beliefs and opinions as it gets closer and closer to reality.But it is also the consilience of results from entirely different sources of investigation that is best explained by each one finding the same underlying reality.If you believe in creation, then the real bible is that creation, and understanding how that reality works and came to be is a truer act of faith. The obverse to that is to believe that the contradictory evidence was created by god/s to fool and delude people, to trick them.Enjoy.

quote:

---

I suggest that there is no way a person could ever know the age of a geological formation by being there or studying it, no matter what methods you use.

---

You may suggest anything you like. But you can't expect to be believed without providing solid arguments to convince us that we cannot trust the evidence.

quote:

---

On the other hand we have the testimony of the best and most trustworthy witnesses that put the Flood about 4300 years ago and all the facts hang together very nicely.

---

And this is false. You have a myth, which you call witness testimony. The facts do hang together - but they point to the views of conventional geology. That is WHY they are the views of conventional geology.If the evidence really supported the Flood, early scientists like Cuvier and the later Agassiz - both in the ICRs list of Creationist scientists (or were the last time I looked) - would have seen it. In reality, Cuvier realised that a single flood could not explain what he saw, and Agassiz provided the final nail in the coffin of the Flood by understanding that the deposits attributed to the Flood were in fact deposited by glaciers.

The only answer needed to this post is to point out that Mikey has made absolutely NO attempt to find out why people reject the Flood myth.So of course, he gets it all wrong.It's pretty hard to believe that anybody with any interest in this debate could not know that the geological and fossil record are represented as evidence AGAINST the Flood. And anyone who is at all honest and informed would have to admit that there are features of both that fit perfectly well with conventional geology but not with the Flood (the order of the fossil record, radiometric dating and evaporites to name just three).Mikey claims that we won't read the "best" creationist sources (which, of course is just his invention) - but he won't even pay attention to the debates here.Mikey, you shouldn't use Hovind as an example of a creationist not worth bothering with. On the basis of this performance you should point to yourself.

It's an odd thing but the earlier scientists were hindered by their false expectations of what the evidence should look like, such as "deposits attributed to the Flood" that turned out to be caused by glaciers. It just didn't occur to them to consider the entire geologic column as evidence for the Flood. Some thought maybe one of the layers was the evidence. They were thinking way too small for a worldwide Flood and came to ridiculously inadequate ideas of what it would have done.

But of course Mike is right, the geologic column and the fossil record are excellent evidence for the Flood and misused by today's science as evidence against it.