Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

I understood in the following years that there was a mistake, but it did not change my attitude towards evolution which to me was an insult to God.I initially came here thinking that there would be a fair trial for creationism, but soon found out I am up against a brick wall.
There was no communication, just slapping around whatever I said, so how would anyone respond? Most people just leave.
It seems like you want me to be a troll, so I gave you reason to heighten your slapping quest. Yes, it is a troll thing, but you weren't going to let creationism even start were you?

Yeah, and you carbon dated a coin, too.You've sort of ruined your credibility here. You seem to say whatever comes into your head. Does it never occur to you that claims can be verified?So maybe you have a reference for the work of these "top scientists in Australia" who investigate studies of religious fundamentalism? By the way, after all your disparaging comments about science, why are you suddenly putting your trust in scientists? 99% of scientists accept evolution. --Percy

If I what I say is so clownish, what would be the point of saying that, when it doesn't prove anything otherwise. would it not be better to say "This sounds stupid TO ME, because..." and provide a short succinct answer, and not "because you are mental!"At least you are to the point, and I appreciate that.

I have said from the start that I agree with science and its method of deduction and analysis, but not its conclusions of evolution, and other theories.In the same way I agree with creationism, but not all of the conclusions they draw from science that they have sought to back them up. And I do not agree with religions in general, because they fall out by their own claims of authority.

You are right, it does not help my stand at all. I knew that, but my degradation would have been no different had I produced the evidence which would have been refuted on the basis of preconceived ideas which dominate the thinking and reasoning.What you are saying is that evolution cannot be wrong because C14 dating proves it.
That is the current opinion in the science world, which I believe will be proven false soon by those who have expertise in the field.

Coming from your standpoint, I believe you have a case against creation science, personally I have scruples with it too, for other reasons, because it tries to find a compromise between inspiration and the opinions of the world.

That's fantastic, scientists publish their work - evidence at last. What's his name, do you have a citation?

By what criteria do you conclude that when a scientist studies evolution he's wrong, but when a scientist studies religious surveys in Australia he's right?You keep complaining about your treatment here, but you have a habit of making things up, you never mention evidence except while being wrong, and your basis for accepting of scientific findings seems to be whether you agree with them rather than an assessment of the evidence. Do you think errors, fabrications and irrationality should go unchallenged?So since you didn't respond, can we assume that what you wrote in your Message 838 is just more stuff you made up: If decide to insist you didn't make it up, please provide supporting evidence of this claim.--Percy

I agree with you to a large extent. It makes perfect sense.IMO Religions have a numbing effect on rationality, because they do not allow people to become connected to God through findings in nature or genuine science, and prefer to hold the upper hand through causing people to be fascinated with their programs and rituals. They have assumed the authority of God on earth, while in fact eclipsing the truth. As you said they will tell the student what is to be believed.
The religions are self interested and political in their approach, and put a cloud over freedom and the spirit of exploration.
For one thing, they have succeeded in reducing the meaning of faith from evidence of God to a whim called belief.While science, as others have pointed out, is not in the business of either claiming or not claiming the existence of God, religions have perfected the art of getting people to have themselves on.Either way, the focus has been removed from truth about the Creator, which if discovered would open up another point of reference other than materials by which to discover the facts about the universe.I still believe genuine religion and genuine science are not only compatible but the same study. But not if religious organizations had anything to do with it.

Round up the usual suspects ... we now have excuse #2 ... the typical creationist-who-doesn't-understand-radiation-decay-physics approach ... blame something you are ignorant of.Short answer, no. Such decay acceleration has not been observed in general, for carbon in specific.Long answer see Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? for a discussion on noticeable physics effects with changing decay rates. Ground radiation is common, but the presence of one radioactive element does not change the decay rate of an adjacent radioactive element. The presence of uranium in the ground has been observed causing a low level of 14C to be created, causing a false younger date in very old samples. Why would presence in a lab make it different? Wouldn't these same alpha and beta particles that you posit as being rampant in the earth also affect the lab? Or is it not part of the earth? Curiously that has no affect on the reality of evolution processes being observed and documented or of those processes being fully capable of explaining the diversity of life we see from the fossil record, the genetic record, history, and the life around us.Or are you mixing up evolution and age of the earth in your argument even though one does not depend on the other? So you are back to saying it was a mixup because you were a poor student that didn't pay attention.But now, today, you can argue against science because of some magic knowledge that you suddenly have in spite of being a poor student? The earth is not "2500 years old"? That's a new one. Are you having trouble keeping your story straight?And now you are back to the coin 14C date being 2500 years. Waffle waffle waffle.and your "evidence" for the error is your a priori belief in a young earth ...... and that you were given results in a school that was not strong on science but somehow could afford multiple 14C lab tests run for a children's school class, ... must be nice to go to a rich school that throws money at tests like this for the kids.... results that you did not question in any way because you were not interested in learning.If you want to discuss real evidence for the minimum age of the earth see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, evidence that does not rely on bogus 14C dates, or any 14C or other radiometric dates at all (for that matter). Perhaps you would care to start a thread on this topic so you can present your evidence and findings? It might be fun. Not surprisingly I expect that you don't ask a lot of questions to test your conclusions, so it will be interesting if you can actually provide some detail to this claim ... more substantial than your waffled evidence on the coin dating.After all, if you have studied it as a hobby you must have lots of data.Enjoy.

As I was reading the first part of this paragraph, I was thinking I needed to respond that it is not the actual science that gets people its being taught how to actually think things through. Philosophy is a dangerous subject for young fundamentalists to take. As you said, once you are exposed to other perspectives and you learn how to analyze them and scrutinize them, beliefs that are held without strong basis, quickly crumble.Ironically, the course that had the biggest impact on my faith/belief system was World Literature. Two of the works we read (excerpts, of course) were Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost. These stories were a huge "light bulb" moment for me. I realized that much of our images of heaven, hell and the Adam and Eve story were based on these works of literature, not on actual scripture. I vowed then that I would allow any belief I had to be subject to scrutiny and that I would be willing to let go of any belief that I held on to that did not hold up.I have not lost my faith by any means, in fact I would say it has made my faith stronger. I no longer need to feel like I need to just believe something but not know why. I need to dig deeper, so to speak, and figure out why I believe what I believe. Unfortunately, the message so many fundamentalists have is it is all-or-nothing; believe what they say or else you may as well be an atheist. That is the message that I so strongly oppose in creation science. I agree.HBD

Karl Kruszelnicki - WikipediaDr Karl is one of the scientists who made the comment on ABC radio science talk that the survey did not consider the inclusiveness of Christian organizations etc
I do not have the time to go through all the podcasts, delivered every Thursday in Australia, at 930 am ABC 612, and 11 am on Tripple J.If you think I am lying as you do, why am I corresponding with an abuser?Edited by Colbard, : complete

No. That's been tested.

Karl Kruszelnicki is a science popularizer, not a scientist. Let me quote you again from your Message 838: Perhaps what you really meant to say was, "Someone on TV commented on the survey."I understand you feel you're being given a hard time, but you're the cause of all your problems. Whenever you say anything that can be verified, almost invariably it's wrong.You have the entire Internet at your disposal. You could actual check what you say before clicking the "Submit" button.--Percy

In my opinion, he was correct regardless of what you think.
But if my opinion adds to nothing and I am the liar and failure you would prefer, then so is your opinion worth the same.Why have a forum for people to communicate when, that should not be, just text book quotes?No wonder your numbers have dropped off.