Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Science produced the computer you're looking at.

I don't think anybody believes you on that.

I think computers were designed using the same scientific principles used to formulate the Theory of Evolution. They're brothers. You can't have one without the other.

If you're telling the truth you should be able to show us all of the papers you've written about your successful treatments.Screw the math. Show us the results.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

So how did scientists invent the computer if they're as brainless as you claim?

As I said, science gets results. You keep saying that science knows nothing, yet it managed to produce the computer you say it on. Don't you understand how silly you sound? Do you think you're doing your God a favour by making His followers look like idiots?

Or the people who denigrate evolution aren't as clever as THEY think they are. Creationism is dead. There are a few crackpots still trying to resurrect it but they don't have a leg to stand on.

That isn't what I asked you. I asked for YOUR papers. It seems a little odd that you'd be on a fairly obscure forum ranting about evolution when you supposedly could be showing physians how successful your method is compared to theirs. The point is: bring the results HERE.

Why don't you post your thoughts instead of giving us a reading assignment?

I've told you several times: They use the same methods. Why would the same methods work in one situation but not another?

You are ranting. You keep repeating that silly mantra as if it meant something. Again, I'm not asking you for every reference to "combination therapy hiv". I'm asking you for evidence that YOUR ideas are more successful than the methods of the people who "don't understand the math". Because that's what scientists do.

You haven't shown us any limits.

No, your ranting about "cliques" doesn't have anything to do with any experiments. Again, that's not what I asked for. I want to see the studies where you show that your METHODS - not your explanations -are more effective at treating cancer, HIV, etc. than the methods used by people who supposedly don't understand the math. Your explanations have no value unless you get results. You should definitely stop that silly rant if you want to be a real scientist.

No such clique. Is English not your first language?I'm not questioning combination therapy.I'm asking for evidence that YOU have had better results treating YOUR patients according to YOUR ideas. Didn't you make that claim?A vague Google search ain't gonna cut it. I want to see your idea directly compared with the idea you denigrate - concrete clinical results.

Well, practically everybody who has studied biology knows that something slightly like that happened but they wouldn't put it in such a childish way. And it's certainly no clique. Not near enough. You haven't demonstrsted that ANY of those papers support your position. For the umpteenth time, this is not about your mathematical model. This is about concrete evidence that your model works better - in real life - than the conventional model. You need clinical tests for that.