Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

True, but imagine how far you'd have gotten at school if the teacher had just stated that the letter "a" is "a" and you said, prove it to me, I won't believe it until it is proven to be so. You'd never get ahead.But you accepted the alphabet by faith so that you could learn to read. The proof that "a" = "a" could only come if you accepted it first. Such is creationist knowledge. "by faith we understand that God created worlds" -plural, not single, here is evidence of other worlds, and yet science has not discovered them yet or have they?Faith comes before more things than we want to admit, so it is not a disposable tool for discovery at all.

Yes, if the earth was that old, that's true. Personally I go with about 6000 years old. I have never believed the methods claimed for dating materials is correct, mainly because I had a coin from 1958 which dated at 2500 years old by radio carbon dating. Apparently the mistakes in readings are exponential after a few decades back in time. But there is no sense in arguing here. I'm just letting you know where I'm at.

Only an utter fool would accept that "a" is "a" on faith.The teacher would explain the reason "a" is "a" and frankly, it is so simple even a Creationist might be able to understand."a" is "a" by definition. If we are going to communicate we will need some common language and in the language we use in this country "a" is "a".That is not true though in all countries or all languages as you will learn when you are older.

This is an argument that we can hopefully convince you to abandon because it has creationist answer. We, man created 'a'. Man imagined it into existence in order to help him communicate over time.Man said 'let there be an alphabet', and lo, there was a letter 'a' and man saw the 'a' and it was good. So man creted 'b'. After the 26th letter he rested.A bit later man said go forth and multiply, but that's another story.....

I don't believe you had a coin radiocarbon dated.First, I doubt if you have ever researched radiocarbon dating or even contacted a laboratory that does such things.Second, you don't radiocarbon date metals! You need something that was once living, something that would have absorbed C14 from the atmosphere while it was alive and stopped absorbing C14 upon death.If that coin is your sole justification for not accepting the results of radiocarbon dating you reaffirm my faith in creation "science."And no, the mistakes are not exponential after a few decades. Here is the current calibration curve, INTCAL13, that combines tree-rings and several other methods into a single curve. As you can see, it is not exponential. And you are correct, there is no sense in arguing here. We should be arguing this in the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.But first it would help if you learned something about the radiocarbon dating method.

The foundation is part of the house. It's true that the analogy fails if you're promoting a young earth in an old universe or young humans in an old earth, etc.

And that would be why it is an analogy. All analogies fall apart if they are pushed beyond the scope of the analogous features.

Hint: the key word is radio CARBON dating. Don't take any carbon nickels, son. Not having the slightest clue about radiometric dating causes much worse readings.

IIRC there has been some results lately of dating metals by separating out some of the carbon in steels (particularly old spear heads and knives) and then dating the carbon.The big limitations as expected is that the carbon must be from the same age as the artifact and the incorporation of fossil fuels like coal or coke will make the object date older than it is.I still strongly doubt that he had any coin dated.Edited by jar, : fix link

I think he may have meant radiometric dating in general instead of carbon specifically.In any case, it's an excuse that I've never heard before for rejecting dating.

They are congruent as long as objective empirical evidence is taken as evidence of creation. Science is properly taught in science classes where investigations are necessarily limited by what can be observed and tested. Religion is properly taught in philosophy or comparative theology classes -- such classes can refer to scientific evidence and knowledge as foundational arguments, ie -- beliefs that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence are more likely "true" than ones at odds with the evidence (such as age of the earth).Science is a tool for acquiring knowledge related to reality; just as math is a tool to help understand science, science is a tool for understanding the reality of creation.see Is ID properly pursued? for my position on the relation of science to philosophy & religion. In your not so humble opinion. With objective empirical evidence that contradicts those aspects. (a) Do you have any examples of this?(b) How do you KNOW that it is false science and(c) How do you KNOW that it is 'true' religion? Just as religion evolved to accept that the earth is not the stationary center of the universe around with all other objects orbit, religion is evolving to accept that the earth is old and that there was no noachin flood event in the looooong natural history of the earth.We observe this by observing all the religions and different sects that already accept these facts of reality ... facts determined by multiple consilient areas of scientific investigation.Enjoy.

Did you now? Did you really?Did you also subject it to dendrochronological dating? What number did you get when you sawed through its trunk and counted its growth rings? How did that compare with the date on its birth certificate? *coughs* Bullshit. *coughs*

pointlessEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, and so is an old door.When I was in Northern Va, I used to routinely pass by an unfinished church foundation. The foundation had been laid, and some additional work was done. But all work stopped for years after that point because the church apparently had money issues.If that building is ever completed it may be highly inappropriate to date the building as being the same age as the foundation. The analogy was never any good in the first place. How old are the nails in the hard ware store? Is a dog house or any other house the same age as the nails used for framing? No.

There is also the limitation that carbon is used with iron/steel. At one time steel was used in some US coins, but not in 1958.