Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

So if the beta decay is increased somehow while the carbon is in the ground, then we will have the reading for a very old bone.
The earth radiates alpha and beta particles as if it has a surplus, could this process accelerate the decay rate while the object is buried? A rate which is far slower in lab conditions?The belief in evolution was not very strong in my school, some thought it was a joke and most did not think about it. Did I hear someone else's results? Probably,
I assumed it was an error, not because I understood carbon dating, but because I did not believe the earth was that old, let alone the coin. I thought carbon dating was somehow wrong and did not know how.
I still assume it is wrong because I have studied the global flood as a hobby, and it adds up fine.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

And have the thread filled with abuse? What for?

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

Dwise1,The main difference between genuine Christian believers and the world in general is that they consider the Bible as the word of God, an authority above man made theories and conclusions.But because there are apostate bibles and other paraphrased material out there, as well as different gospels and hundreds of false doctrines, the truth in its primitive form is lost among it all, and the paraphernalia out there is used by unbelievers as proof of its shaky foundations.Then on top of that, creationists make the mistake of trying to naturalize the miracles to fit science.The first evidence that the true believer has is the word of God and everything else has to be tested by it.The world on the other hand puts the opinions and conclusions of man above revelation and God. So there is no harmony there.It does not mean that science cannot be married to creationism, it just means that the conclusions drawn which contradict the Bible have to be left out.If I were to talk about global flood dynamics, the Bible would be my first and only reference, which has authority over and above the world. It does not matter if other thoughts and conclusions disagree with it.
At the same time, I could have an interpretation of scripture which it does not say, and such is the case of the majority of creationists who do not understand the fundamentals of creation. In which case I would have to be shown from scripture where I am wrong.The bottom line is that we are prone to make mistakes, both in the field of science and theology, and that we as human beings are not infallible.I believe that if we place our opinions above nature or God then we are kidding ourselves.It would be pointless for me to talk about the global flood if my references from the Bible are considered to be of no value. There are many aspects I have discovered about it, which I have yet to hear from creationists.Having talked about it to other audiences, I am aware that the majority, if not all, are incapable of comprehending what I say, it is a matter of intelligence capacities. I know that sounds narcissistic and arrogant, and even insane, but I have been avoiding saying anything about it for that very reason, not wanting to offend more than already. And now that sounds patronizing.
It is not that others are incapable of knowing, it is just that it is uncommon for someone to have done the homework themselves and exercised their mind to be able to comprehend the facts that scripture makes so plainly.To date, you have been annoyed that I make outrageous claims, but that is your problem for having squeezed yourself into a certain pigeon hole, which by the way you would like me to do also by asking me to make a statement of where I stand in theology or whatever.In regards to the outrageous claims, they are very obvious to anyone who has studied the scriptures.

Sorry, but you are so wrong and deceived, but then again how could you possibly know that.
The same goes for the rest of you, sealing your own destinies by what you have sown.Edited by Colbard, : m