Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Keep dicing.

I did not come from there, and neither do I have pictures of people hanging from their tails in the sepia section of my family album.So you don't understand the swamp, then maybe the scrapings of an alien's elbow might have started life here?You can make up what you want, or better have no opinion and just follow the crowd.
Surely after Dr Adequate's assessment of your brains compared to mine, you should be able to come to a mighty high decision on that Q.Oh, but I must be a troll because I don't reveal my real age or name, unlike honest NoNukes or Coyote the Native American, or Jar the speaking cat.

You did mention carbon dating coins, though. Quite a clown.

There are different ideas as to what makes a person a troll, but IMO, essentially what it boils down to is someone who continually posts with the express intention of invoking an emotional response. And then when they get the emotional response they wanted, they decry how impossible it is to have a productive conversation because of the emotional responses. The troll rarely, if ever, presents actual arguments, but focuses on the fault of his / her opponents for derailing the discussion.So does that description fit you? If so, you might be a troll. If not present your actual arguments.HBD

Carbon dating is the holy grail of evolution. It's entire structure rests on that poor brick, and many other poor foundations like it have been buttressed to keep the confounded thing from looking unsupported.So why not introduce the topic of dating with a holed story? It's a perfect mockery in return for the instant rebuttals of anything that comes near this tottering mess called evolution.Pages and pages of arguments for it, but all the while the topic of the thread is derailed and ignored, because some people cannot see any value in creationism or ID.Some people would rather bend their energies disproving a lone class incident of no significance, than see an ounce of creationism or the Bible.
So if and when people are not prepared to listen, give them what they want to engage in, -useless arguments.

Again, you are simply showing your utter ignorance of science, reality or history. Radio Carbon dating is useful for the recent past, maybe sixty thousand years, but evolution has been going on for at least four billion years. So far no one has ever been able to produce any evidence that might support Creationism or ID having any value. Perhaps you might provide some? Maybe you can produce an ounce of Creationism or the Bible. So far you have shown a total lack of understand of either.Have you ever actually read the Bible?

So now, if people don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions and feelings, anybody can be blamed for an inconvenient response and be called a troll and banned? Is that how it works?If you are so sensitive and offended at anything that might challenge your view on evolution, what are you doing here, responding to me in such a thread? It's like watching a movie you hate isn't it?I cannot be blamed for trolling when you are the one compelled to do things which annoy you. Where is the responsibility to yourself or are you are helplessly ill and waiting for an adaptation into a more complex and intelligent creature? It won't happen by chance - and it will never happen, no matter how much time passes.
It's time to give up evolution and become creative.

You still have nor explained what "an accident in a swamp" has to do with evolution. Please explain.

I'm not sure why we bother correcting you anymore - you're oblivious to information, but just in case you ever care about not making a fool of yourself.....Evolution was discovered in the early 19th century and published in 1860. Radioactivity wasn't discovered until 30+ years later but radiocarbon dating wasn't invented until 40 years after that.Radiometric dating is not required for evolution but it IS required by creationists because had creation happened in the last 10,000 years, it would prove it.It's the same kind of thing with genetics, evolution was accepted by science well before there was any knowledge of genetics. Genetics could have completety debunked evolution as a theory by disproving common ancestry. Instead it fitted in beautifully.Scientific theories are cool like that - they're built from multiple sources of independent evidence, each one capable of proving the whole wrong.So if you have any evidence to disprove any of these things, it'd be great to hear from you.
(Yeh, right.)

Can anyone possibly be so ignorant as to believe this? Because telling lies is naughty.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Nope. Evolution existed before carbon dating and all that carbon dating provides is more accurate data for the last 50,000 years of the natural history of life on earth.We could toss carbon dating in the dust bin tomorrow and all of evolution would be just as valid, just as real, and just as good an explanation for the evolution of diversity of life on earth Because they are not science, they are beliefs. They have as much credence as your posts. Show an ounce and we can talk about it. Simple.But don't worry ... ... it isn't completely without value, it can always serve as a bad example of how not to do science.Enjoy

Radiocarbon dating was invented close to a hundred years after evolution.And it is but one of many dating techniques used in various sciences. And it is not used to establish the maximum age of the earth--just a minimum age. But that's no problem. All of the dating techniques disprove the young earth idea. Face it, you really didn't know any better than to try to peddle the story of radiocarbon dating a coin.You could have come up with a far better creationist tale than that though. How about the natural gas from Mississippi that was misdated? Or the coal from Russia? Those are creationist favorites, and can be found all over the web and in their literature.But then: Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

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.)

Not sure where anyone mentioned banning. It is simply that you wondered why you were being called a troll and I explained to you the way I see it. Not offended at all. Nothing in my response was an emotional reaction. There is just not that much at stake on an internet forum. And you certainly haven't said ANYTHING that challenges MY view on evolution, not even the slightest. Actually, I usually just ignore members like you and don't post much in response because I know it will not be productive. If you actually presented an argument, I might weigh in, but all you are doing is strutting around. No thanks.I just wanted you to know why people think you are trolling, and you proved my point.HBD

I thought the Crocoduck was the Holy Grail of evolution. Wish I could find one of those!HBD