Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

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.

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.

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.

I think it would be entirely appropriate, especially in the context we are discussing. The young-earthers are saying, in effect, that there were no settlers in northern Virginia until last Thursday. The fact that the oldest part of the church predates their claim is enough to disprove their claim. The nails are older than the house. Therefore, the "oldest age" must be at least as old as the nails. A house built last Thursday using medieval wrought-iron nails proves that there was something at the time the nails were made.

You misunderstand the analogy.In the analogy, the house represents the creation - i.e. the heavens and the earth, i.e. the universe. You're thinking of something older being introduced into the house from outside - but that isn't possible if the house is the universe. The universe must be at least as old as the oldest thing in the universe.Even Colbard seems to have understood that, though he rejects the clear conclusion for religious reasons.

The analogy was only intended to illustrate a different point of view to Colbard. He seems to have taken the point but rejected the "lesson" for unrelated reasons. The analogy, therefore, is a success.If you don't like it, boo hoo. I think I already mentioned that the analogy doesn't work in an old-universe/young-earth scenario. That's a position that Colbard doesn't take (I think), so your comments are irrelevant. In Colbard's view, the nails, wood, brick, etc. were all created in the same six days, so the analogy stands.

You can't think "outside the box" constructively until you understand the box. People who don't understand carbon dating, for example, have no business thinking independently about it.

Sense of smell is subjective. Hold your nose.

You're almost half right. Try it this way: "True, evolution is... the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God."The reason the theory of evolution is so successful is because it works. Revelations seldom do. And there are so many conflicting revelations. Science works by weeding out the revelations (and I use the word `weed` deliberately). That leaves observations that can be confirmed repeatedly.And of course `humanism`is a good thing.

Indeed. How would you know you were on the right side? I'm the first one to tell you to be wary of everything (but not to the point of paranoia). Be wary of water; it can kill you - but on the other hand, you can't live without it.In the end, humanism is all we really have; it's the only thing we can count on.

Better and better. What if you choose the wrong promise? What if you choose Christianity and the real God fries you?In the end, it's only your own human wisdom (and the advice of other humans) that you can count on, even to choose a god. Well, in the movies, you'd be pulled up only to have Lee Van Cleef pointing a gun at you. Or you could pull a Harrison Ford and decide which stone to press to open the secret passage. It's your decision.

Be honest. You got caught saying something really stupid. I would personally give you a Cheer if you were big enough to admit it. Yes, it did. For the same reason that you'd speak up if somebody said something you knew to be wrong. Maybe they'd learn something from you or maybe somebody else would learn something by overhearing the conversation. There's a fair bit of garbage in the world - creationism is a prime example - and it needs to be taken out so it doesn't stink up the place. Edited by ringo, : Spoelling.

I don't think Paul intended to convey to Timothy that NEVER learning was better than continuously learning.

Evolution doesn't have "accidents". Learning that would be good.

quote:

---

D.J.: Darlene says I was an accident.
Roseanne: No, D.J., you were a surprise.
D.J.: What's the difference?
Roseanne: Well...an accident is something that if you had to do it over again you wouldn't. But a surprise is something that you didn't even know you wanted until you got it. link

---

Well, the buttresses are pretty strong. Without radiometric dating, the theory of evolution wouldn't lose any of its strength. Because it makes you look like an idiot. (You may not be a duck but you certainly walk like one and quack like one.)