Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

My claim IS that science has no evidence for it's claims and basis for the claims. I do have evidence for that, and your failure to produce anything but beliefs add to the evidence.I accept the bible and historical claims of what life was like and have no reason not to. Those are not my claims. In a science forum I wish to look at the claims put forward by science, and particularly about ages and origins.If I were to defend bible claims it would not be in a science forum, since science is far too weak and small and inadequate to deal with the issues.Don't worry about other beliefs here just focus on defending your own.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Your claim is that you will invent fantasies in order to avoid evidence.

Is that why you have to contrive some exceptional recombination scenario to deal with the 3e9 replications for each evolutionary step to explain fish evolving into mammals? It's the multiplication rule Taq. And that is the reality you refuse to accept.

Do you have mental problems?

None when it comes to the mathematics of evolution. But I know these people that when they look at fossils, they have these delusions that they are seeing fish evolving into mammals. These people really need help, combination therapy is called for, mathematical and empirical evidence.

And yet they are the ones that can use their science for practical purposes and you can't.

You haben't explained the computers yet. Who made them?

Science produced the computer you're looking at.

I think what dad is talking about is that you have no evidence for your theory of evolution. Of course, if you think that the computer he is looking at evolved from fingers is evidence explains why they are called digital computers. Does that mean watches evolved from dogs because there are watchdogs? Did chestnuts evolve from horses or did horses evolve from chestnuts? What came first, the chestnut or the horse. Oh, what does it matter, they both evolved and now we both horse-chestnuts and chestnut horses. The theory of evolution explains so much!

Wrong on that one ringo. I use my mathematics when treating drug-resistant infection (and they are all too common thanks to the fish evolve into mammal clique). And the principle is quite simple. Don't use single-drug therapy when there is a high risk for selecting resistant variants. Understand rubberband?

You keep referring to the fish evolve into mammal clique. But it’s nor a clique is it? It’s nearly every biologist, indeed scientist, on the planet that you are claiming superior knowledge to.You still have no alternative explanation for the origin of species. And it’s not like your model has led to the discovery of new species or indeed the discovery of anything of note at all.Let us know when the Nobel prize arrives... Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

clique
/kl—k,klik/
noun
a small group of people, with shared interests or other features in common, who spend time together and do not readily allow others to join them. "the old-school clique"There was a time when nearly every scientist said the earth was flat. And why hasn't your clique explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You have had over 30 years to figure out the Lenski experiment. What is taking so long? I've given the correct explanation for DNA evolution, isn't that enough. After all, it explains how drug-resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You in the fish evolve into mammal clique are awfully demanding since you have had over a century to correctly explain the mathematics of Darwinian evolution, but haven't done it. What's your excuse? You in the fish evolve into mammals clique are really slow. I already told you that Edward Tatum already got the Nobel Prize. I just put the mathematics to his idea. Your clique could have done it but I guess math is not emphasized in your discipline.

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.

It doesn't surprise me when members of fish evolve into mammals clique say that. After all, you think that increasing the number of selection pressures on a population accelerates evolution when what it really does is increase the probability that you will drive the population to extinction. And even if it doesn't drive the population to extinction, it impairs the DNA evolutionary process as well demonstrated by the use of combination therapy to treat hiv.