Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

This is a science thread. There cannot be any such thing as blasphemy.Blasphemy is a religious stupidity to stifle other religious opinions. It holds no place in a science thread.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Daniel 4:10-11
Matthew 4:8
Revelation 1:7
Revelation 7:1
Isaiah 40:22
Jeremiah 51:16
Marmaduke 21:18

Nobody is silencing your beliefs. When/if you return from your suspension you will be free to express your opinions/beliefs but you do have to do it within the rules.

"dad" is obviously doing everything he can to violating the forum rules and get suspended so he can now claim that he, and all other creationists, are being silenced on these types of discussion sites because atheists and other non-true-believers have no answers to their challenges. Typical creationist "morality".

Sorry for this imposition, but this cry is going out to every forum member with any experience in dentrochronology. IOW, what all this stuff about tree rings is about.OK, so just what exactly are tree rings about? What do they show, exactly?As far as I can assume, each ring denotes the passage of one year.OK, so what would we expect to see if multiples of years were to be compressed into a single year?Is dad able to explain that away?

Tree rings form because of seasonal variation in growth rates. Mostly. Sometimes a ring is missing or two grow in a year. Pretty much all the trees missed a ring in 1816, Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia. Rings are sampled by coring with a hollow bit. If you know the date of one ring, usually the outermost, you can count back to its inception.If you can find a dead tree of the same species in the same location, you can see if its outermost rings line up with some of the rings in a specimen for which you know the date, and then you can count back to the dead tree's inception. Repeat enough times and you can go back to about 8,000 years before present. YECs don't like this. See Crossdating - The Basic Principle of Dendrochronology.14C dating of the rings and several other techniques allow us to build a "calibration curve", which is used to adjust raw 14C dates to compensate for varying 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere over time. Here's a portion of one: The horizontal axis is age measured by various non-14C methods, and vertical axis is raw 14C dates of the same samples.In the real world matching rings involves sophisticated signal processing, trying every possible alignment, and getting as many overlapping specimens as possible to increase certainty. Here's a plot of the samples from Graybill and Funkhouser, the Methuselah Walk chronology from the White Mountains of California (bristlecone pines}. If you are interested in sordid details, there's a debate with a YEC where Pingu is working through processing that dataset: The Fake Science of Trying to Extend Dendrochronology Back Before Noah's Flood - Page 91. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Not quite what I was asking about.My basic question was regarding what evidence we would expect under the conditions that dad wanted to impose upon us. Such as expansive growth spurts within a single growth season. Would those express themselves as multiple rings or rather instead as extra-wide xylum rings. I would assume extra-wide xylum rings instead of multiple rings. Spurts of growth, what?dad wants to impose a particular model upon us. Shouldn't we apply that particular model in order to see what it yields? IOW, complete and utter BS!

He doesn't have a model. I don't see any way to apply a nonexistent model.

What? JonF, creationists apply nonexistent models several times before breakfast!!

quote:

---

Tree rings form because of..

---

Irrelevant. How anything forms now in this nature would only have relevance if you can prove this nature existed.
Finding other dead trees does not help if they also grew in that former nature.Carbon ratios do not matter if they were made in the former nature.

That is correct, NOW trees grow in a seasonal/yearly pattern. Now all we need is this present nature in the past so we could also say the same for rings in the far past!

If all you offered was fact and knowledge rather than diss Scripture that may be the case.

Assertion.
No evidence.
Fail.

Can't disrespect something that has no respect to diss. Religion is the greatest evil ever to infect the mind of humanity. Your scripture is evil in thought and deed. It is lie masquerading as truth to enslave the mind.There is no utility for humanity, there is no relevance to reality, there is no good for the world in your scripture or your religion. There is nothing but blood, pain and death in its words. Enslavement is its goal.Your book is nothing but an excuse to subjugate the people, enrich your priests and to kill the minds of the children. Your own conception of your god is as a bloodthirsty monster with the entrails of the innocent still in its teeth.Your scripture is evil and is condemned to be ignored and forgotten. It means nothing. It deserves nothing ... especially respect.Now, getting back to the subject ...What makes you think "the nature" changed some time in the past?We say it has not changed because we have no evidence that it coulda, shoulda, woulda at anytime in the last 13.7 billion years.If you have evidence that it coulda, shoulda, woulda, then present it ...or ...STFU!Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You have it backwards. The sensible approach is to assume that there is no change unless there is evidence of a change. You're the one who has to back up the idea of a change.And by the way, the Bible doesn't say anything about a change in nature. It does not back up your idea about multiple tree rings.