Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

I don't suggest teaching religion in school, not do I support
teaching evolution, especially as a science.It is not a science. It is impossible to replicate what evolutionists
claim. Belief in evolution is merely that--a belief.And as such, it is a religion. It takes a leap of faith to believe in
a concept that has never, nor ever will be, proved.One can believe in evolution with all their heart and mind, but
it will always have to be accepted on faith.Schools should be honest by stating that they cannot determine
how life began or why there is such an abundance of diversified
life.

Observation proves that human parents produce human babies;
that puppies come from dogs; that piglets come from pigs; and,
chimps procreate chimps.No poster on this site has "observed" a dog producing a cat; a
cow producing a raccoon; or, an ape producing a human.Never has a pregnant woman asked "I wonder what kind of animal
will I give birth to?They know for certain that their offsprings will be a human.Why are they (and I) so sure of this fact? Because for thousands
of years we have observed.this to be true.This is observable science. Science does not disagree with
this proven fact; however, evolutionists (whose paradigm prevents
them from seeing truth) reject "observational science."Fossils exist. This is a proven fact. But, they don't comes
with labels attached to them, stating how old they are, or
how many offsprings they had.Humans (guided by their paradigm) place their own interpretations
on them.Scientists (evolutionists) might accept evolution as being
true, but science is not so kind to this concept.

You might want to reduce yourself to the level of an ape,
and I won't attempt to dispute what you so firmly believe.However, I am not kin to the apes, nor were any of my ancestors.

I love science. Look at all the ways that science
improved our standard of living.God commands His followers to "prove" all things.The way I see the situation is this:The Bible and science vs. evolutionists and misguided
human reasoning.

Gen 1 & Gen 2:1-4 is an abridged view of cosmic events taking place in
the creation week. This account is an order of events, and
a brief summary of each day.Gen 2:5-25 is not a different account of creation. One, by necessity,
would be gullible and/or naive to believe that a man would make
such mistakes mere verses apart.The fault lies with the interpretor and not the writer.Gen 2 is simply a more detailed report of Adam and Eve events of day six.
It deals with the Garden of Eden.The phrase "of the field" in 2:5 comes from the Hebrew "sodeh". Sodeh in
in this case refers to cultivated plants that are planted by man.While there were plants on day six (plants were created on day three),
there were no cultivated plants.Why were there no cultivated plant? The answer is quite simple. The
rest of v.5 tell us that there was no man to till the ground.C. 2 does not state that plants and animals were created after man!!
It simply mentions creation after mentioning the creation of man.The order in which events are mentioned here does not claim to be
the order in which they happened.Hebrew does not have "tense" as does English.
Past, present, and future of an "action verb" is determined by context.

Evolutionists believe minute changes, which they refer to as micro evolution (it is nothing more than variations in a species), over the course of eons, leads to macro evolution.Evolutionists require great amounts of time in order for a species to evolve and create a totally different species.They believe that "time" can do the impossible.Evolutionists must have great faith to believe in their concept, because it certainly isn't observable. There is no way possible for them to prove their assertions.I only believe in science that can be proven. True science never relies solely on assumptions.And what I observe is "kind producing kind"

Kind refers to, in this case, animals that are biologically related; have common ancestors; and, can reproduce.All humans are of the same kind. We fulfill the criteria. All three.I group kind into the classification of family.Donkeys, horses, and zebras are of the same kind because they fit the criteria. However, they are not the same species. Even though some offsprings might have great difficulty reproducing they are still of the same kind.The same is true for dogs; coyotes; foxes; wolves; etc.... And all species grouped into the same kind.Two animals of the same kind, but not necessarily the same species, can reproduce. And, as I previously stated not always can the offspring replicate. This is also true of humans. Sometimes "isolation" plays a role in this, but loss of genetic information is not evolution; in fact, it is the opposite.Kind is the limit to reproduction.Observation science has shown that kind produce kind, just as Moses stated in Genesis.

No offense jar, but I prefer to trust in my own judgement; unless, of course, you were a eyewitness to the event.

You ask if I were an eyewitness to the resurrection. The answer is no, and I freely admit this. However, there were numerous eyewitnesses. Many of them were willing to die because His resurrection had changed them to the depth of their soul. These were the same people who had cowered in fear, and who had denied Him.If this had been a hoax the Pharisees would have exposed it at any cost.In any event, I am not trying to have Christianity taught in school at taxpayers expense.Faith based beliefs should not be supported by taxpayers. This is true for evolution

I have already stated that dogs and wolves are of the same "kind." For your information, a pug is a dog.One must have faith to believe in evolution.Can you explain stellar evolution? Can you explain biological evolution? Can you explain chemical evolution? If you can't, then you must either admit there is a creator, or that you have faith they happened on the own.

You have no idea of how stellar evolution could happen, nor does anyone else. You know that I know better than this.Science knows absolutely well that nothing (the size of the period at the end of this sentence) exploded into the universe that we know today. The idea is laughable.You might believe this crap, but you can never prove it.It takes great faith to believe in evolution.

You haven't asked any questions, except maybe how does evolution work. You should know what you have faith in!However, it is not my responsibility to disprove the evolutionary process; it is the duty of them to prove their claims. They are failing miserably.Most evolutionists insist that evolution is nothing but change. Species change they say is carried out by one of two processes. These are "slow and gradual," or "isolated episodes of rapid speciation b/w long periods of time (PE). They cannot agree on this.I have hundreds of question that evolutionists cannot answer with any degree of proof (remember that they claim evolution is a proven fact).Tell me: how did life originate? Please duplicate the process in order to make me a believer.How did the DNA code originate? For proof, please duplicate the process.Who wrote the enormous volume (all the world's data can fit on a DNA hard drive the size of a teaspoon? Who programmed the more than 3 billion letters of the DNA? Since you have proof of how it happened, I would like a step by step analysis.After you have explained the origin of the DNA and it's lettering code, I would like for you to explain (in full) how an organism's DNA code changes.Are the changes caused by mutations; accidental copying mistakes; or errors such as deleted/added/exchanged letters? Mutations have very destructive effects; they are responsible for more than a 1000 dangers to humans hemophilic is one.Please explain (in minute detail) how a simple cell, which if far more complex than a space shuttle, came to be.I am so excited, much like a kid in a candy shop, waiting for proof that evolutionists have.

You posted about how certain processes have shaped biological, chemical, and cosmic evolution. But, they are mere guesses and nothing more. They are to be taken with a grain of salt.You mentioned that the world and universe are more than 10,000 years old. I don't know how old the Earth is, but the Bible teaches that it is more than 6000 years old.David states (Psalms 104:30) that God renewed (Strongs' #2318 rebuild) the face of the Earth.The words w/o form (#8414 tohuw--"to lie waste") and void (#922--"an undistinguishable ruin") are not indicative of an original creation.The angels leapt for joy when Earth was originally created (Job 38:7). It was marvelous!The creation account is to be viewed from the vantage of one standing on Earth, not viewed from space.The war b/w Satan & his demons and Michael & his angels destroyed much of the universe. God did not renew the faces of the other planets and moons in Our solar system. They still carry the scars of a Titanic battle.When God said "let there be light" in verse 3 He simply cleared the debris from the atmosphere. Someone standing on Earth would have then seen light, but it was still filtered by heavy water vapors.I have much more Biblical evidence for a renewal of Earth, but what I have given should be ample.Psalms 104:2 states that God "stretched out" the universe like a curtain.No one knows how old the universe is.In any event, no life existed before it was created for the first time in Genesis 1 & 2.Romans 5:12 tells us that both sin and death entered the world through Adam. Before Adam there were no physical life or death.