Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

It is. And when you use words to mean something other than the normal conversational meaning you invite confusion and misunderstanding. This is why scientists use words in specific ways to mean specific things -- it lessens confusion and misunderstanding.Making up new definitions for words seems to be a common creationist ploy, see Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking., and I have to wonder if the purpose is to confuse and misinform people. Not really -- you just made up the definition, while the universe has existed for a long time before you. If anything it would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. That it is a social construct is evident with different morals espoused by different groups with otherwise common beliefs. That it is a social construct is evident with changes in morals espoused by a group over time. Many people try to ensconce their personal beliefs into political\legal systems as a way to try to force them on others, but forced morality is no morality at all - it has to be accepted. We expect some of it to have a natural (evolved) element and we expect some of it to have a rational (logically derived) element -- see Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?. We also expect that the natural (evolved) elements would match up with what game theory proposes for behavior patterns.We also expect that common elements, such as the 'golden rule' to behave toward others the way you would like them to behave towards you, would fall into these categories (natural and rational), and that uncommon elements, such as killing "sinners" by stoning, would not. That's not quite right; let me fix it for you: The better life is one free from oppression and discrimination, no matter what your personal beliefs are.Of course it is also often the case that when a group is oppressed and they escape and set up a new nation that they often turn and start oppressing other people in precisely the manner that they learned from being oppressed. This shows that the moral beliefs of any specific group are not related to whether or not they are the oppressed or the oppressors. Also known as the social contract. So you set up a false dichotomy and then discarded it. Fascinating.What is the "draw card" is the freedom and liberty to live according to one's personal beliefs. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ... Church\Synagogue\Temple\Mosque etc and home. Congratulations for coming to a rational conclusion ... ... AND let the schools teach science.Enjoy

Don't be shy.

So RAZD,The rationality of love proves that it is a principle. The universe is built by rational means, it performs to appeal to rationality, otherwise you would not have any predictable laws.
If some thing is rational, it is abiding by laws, the rationality of love proves it is a law.If you want to feel what you want, and do what you want, it may not always be rational. So then rational behavior has specific guidelines which protect the quality of life. These are rules, rules of love.But if feelings and not sanity is the criterion of love then...what can we say? It is not reliable or consistent or always rational.If your argument is that there is no such thing as perfect love, then it would also be true that rationality has no absolutes and depends on every man's opinion at the time, which is what people prefer because then they are not accountable to anything except to themselves and how to keep out of reach of the authorities when they are in trouble with the law or anything else that may stand in their way.If love were to be defined as a law, then it must be able to be proven by cause and result, of real life events. It must be the rational conclusion for order and anything which will promote life and its quality.The physical laws of life are not opinions, they depend on specifics.
Therefore if morality exists, then it should be in reference to the preservation of life, and not to social ideologies.The physical specifics of life include mental health, inseparable from the physical being. Human beings have specific needs for what constitutes love and its definitions.So love is a rational and as important as physical laws. It is not just a feeling best judged by you.

You mean physical laws like those which control radiometric dating?Or is that something different because you disagree with the results?

There are too many other factors that disagree with the results, which I don't want to talk about on this thread.

You seem to be an opportunist to your own cause.It is not a false dichotomy, it is a Biblical principle of freedom to not have civil laws engage in religion, there must be freedom of faith, but this freedom is supposed to be used to find truth and not to trash it by ignorance, debauchery and misconduct.
People are attracted to freedom, not realizing the cost of how it may have been obtained through suffering and self denial, in conditions where the authorities were rife with corruption and conceit, and not realizing that freedom does not remove responsibility, but it rightfully leaves you with the choice. And that genuine freedom occurs where the people are personally subject to God.

You don't want to talk about those "factors" because you have nothing. That article on radiocarbon dating you referenced is pure wishful thinking and nonsense.But, if you are silly enough to want to present some of your "evidence" that all of these dating methods are wrong, there is a thread dedicated to just that one subject: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1I'd recommend that you read that thread first, then let's see what you got. But please, don't just copy some nonsense from a creationist website somewhere--when it comes to radiometric dating they will lie to you.

This appears to actually mean something to you. To me it is meaningless because love is irrational, emotion is irrational, so what I read isThe rationality of irrationality proves that it is a principleA self-contradicting phrase gussied up with an appearance of meaning when there is none. The universe appears to behave according to constant laws of behavior, ie - gravity here appears to be similar in detail to gravity on the moon, out in space and even in far galaxies.There is nothing rational or irrational about this. Dirt is neither rational nor irrational. We observe these things and make rational deductions about them. This would be true no matter how the universe was arranged. We are the ones that apply reason to the observations, and we improve on those rational deductions as time passes and more information becomes available. Newton's law of gravity, Einstein's relativity. Darwin's descent of species by natural selection, the modern synthesis of evolution integrating genetics and other processes of evolution into the study of life on earth. You have this backwards and a bit scrambled. If something abides by discernible laws then people can rationally deduce these laws and then apply them to predict future behavior.Not everything is discernible at this time, while your statement would imply that all we have to do is look and the rationality will become apparent. Doesn't happen. Agreed. It may be an emotional (irrational) reaction. The emotional response to danger is flee\freeze\fight and the way you react is not rational, but they have had an evolutionary benefit in the past for survival. What silly pseudologic. A man's opinion does not affect the rationality of math or gravity or evolution -- these things exist whatever your opinion is, facts don't disappear if you don't like them. Example - the earth is very very very old, and denial of this does not affect the evidence (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1) Not really. They are accountable to their family, friends and society, and they are (morally) expected to behave for the benefit of these groups. Personal preferences don't make people into outstanding public figures. Give me a metric to measure the quantity of this love and show that this quantity is measurable in the same amounts no matter who does the measuring. Good luck with that. Specifically evidence, objective empirical evidence, and metrics to measure different aspects that return the same results, independent of who does the measuring. Specifics that the scientific method can be applied to and that study of them provides the opportunity to deduce a rational explanation from the evidence and measurements and observations that can predict future behavior. Again see Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?.What we see is elements related to preservation of family\tribe\society\species and that some of it can be predicted by game theory, and some elements are related to emotional social ideologies (various religions and ignorant beliefs), particularly those related to fear of others and fear of unknowns. Does a sociopath have the same definition of love as you? Does your best friend? How do you measure mental health? You have not made your case. You posit a bunch of ifs and then conclude something that depends on each of those ifs being true, but you have not provided evidence for this.Things are observed to fall to the ground: therefore gravity.
Species are observed to evolve: therefore evolution.
Objects on earth are observed to be very very old: therefore the age of the earth is very very old.That is rational deduction from observed objective empirical evidenceThe color of the moon is defined as blue: therefore the moon is blue.This is not a rational deduction.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : finished comments

What thread would you like to discuss them on? Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
14C Calibration and Correlations
Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
Validity of Radiometric Dating
14C calculations
Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
Uranium Dating
The radiometric dating of basalts
Reliable Radiometric Dates as an Artifact of Assumptions
Potassium Argon Sensitivity Analysis
Radioactive carbon dating
Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project
Problems with Radiometric Dating?
Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages
Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth
Dating by Stratigraphic Position
Praise for the RATE GroupOr a new thread where you propose to discuss what you perceive as problems with dating methodologies?Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.Enjoy

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.
If I wanted to read text books I would not bother with a forum - to repeat stuff like a bored parrot. But you insisted on it so that's what I gave you an opportunity to do. So far you haven't said anything new, not even the name calling is original. I'm silly, delusional, trolling...I have heard it all before, you seem to be convinced that I need an education from your world, because you think you know what I know, but you don't, and that is the truth. I am sorry to disappoint you but what you have to offer is not new to me, and you have had plenty of time to bring up something original and interesting.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? Because the mind has been designed by God to enjoy truth, not evolution, not the BB, black hole theories, and other lies.And that's what you want in education? Boring stuff?

I am a born again believer. I have a personal daily relationship with Jesus Christ. Based on that criteria, I should be able to know what you know and/or be able to interpret it. Right?

RAZD, you are in the habit of taking each sentence of my posts out of its context and putting your twisted slants onto it, or, juggling with the meaning of words, by their different meanings in other areas of learning.If you can't summarize what I have said or get the gist of it, you may need to practice doing that.If I did to your posts what you do to mine, I could do it with a lot more damage.
Do you want a demo? Then be smart and read the whole lot, and comment on the main point.By the way, if you cannot measure love by your extremely short ruler, or put it into a test tube, does that mean it does not exist?If you do not know that love is an active source of life to the universe, you are a fool. I get a little bit tired of people who do not see wonder and intelligence and thought and love in the universe and world around them. I find such blindness irritating and disappointing.

If that is the case, you are miles ahead of anything I know.

You know RAZD, there is one thing I cannot fault you with, you are thorough and like Coyote, you bring lots to the table.But it does not matter if the whole scientific community supports those theories, and that your dating methods confirm those ideas. I am saying that they are wrong, yes the whole lot, including the dating methods. These so called facts prevent you from listening to anything else. You are stuck in a rut.Edited by Colbard, : add

No you didn't. What you did was repeat a story you'd read on a creationist site or been told by another nutty creationist and presented it as your own experience with some flowery additions. You thought that it was proof of a carbon dating error. In other words you told a huge porky pie and got caught.Now you're telling more lies and everyone can see it. The dishonest tactics haven't worked, why don't you try being honest for a while - you never know, it might work.