Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Do you understand the mathematics of quality control? Let's say you are a manufacturer of millions of copies of a part for some kind of machine. And that part has to be within specific tolerances in order for the machine to work. Your customer wants to know if this part will work every time. Testing all of the millions of parts is way too costly so you sample from that pool of parts and do a statistical analysis. That's what I've done with that pool of papers and none have contradicted the math that I've presented. Now, all you have to do is find one paper that proves the math that I've presented is wrong. Start reading. ibid, see above Yawn
Combination therapies for combating antimicrobial resistance - PMC Why Do Cancer Treatments Stop Working? - NCI https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/78/9/2419 Combination therapy - Wikipedia Combination Approaches to Combat Multi-Drug Resistant Bacteria - PMC How many papers do you want me to cite? Now get off your lazy butt and find a single paper that contradicts the math that I've presented. What is with you people in the fish evolves to mammals clique? Is your reading list limited to fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine? You are so ignorant of the real examples of evolution, it is pathetic.

You're not listening. I don't care about contradicting the math. I'm talking about results - MEDICAL results. I want to see at least one paper documenting that more patients are cured using your math. I want you to cite papers with actual medical results, not "one possible way" or "potential". Actual. Results that happened, past tense. Medical results.

You are not thinking. So you think that combination therapy doesn't demonstrate actual medical results for hiv, cancer, tb, leprosy, malaria,... You need to expand your reading list beyond fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine.

Math does not demonstrate medicine. Only medicine demonstrates medicine.And it's becoming pretty clear that you don't have any medical results to back up your claim.

whatever

No. Evidence is something like a fossil. Or a rock containing ratios of isotopes. Or indications continents used too be together. The beliefs are when you assume a same nature existed when fossils were made. (you see if the forces and laws of nature were not the same, we might have a situation where only a small percentage of animal types may have been able to leave remains that could fossilize). Or, if the nature was different, the speed at which a continent could separate may be different that the slow rates we see today. Or, if there were other forces in place, the processes at work in the past may not have involved radioactive decay as we now see....etc.So, yes, we do have fossils, and no, the fossil recorrds does not need to mean what you thought it did based on beliefs.

That's all fiction. You just made it up.

You could have run away a long time ago and saved us all a lot of time.

Is that what you think "whatever" means? Look it up.

In other words, you believe the nature of the past was the same and can't prove it, but think anything else must be made up.

The unique thing you are missing is the ability to predict and discover. What has creationism discovered recently? Or indeed ever? Well come back to us when your godly alternative narrative starts leading to the discovery of new species. If all you have are post hoc explanations of the new evidence discovered as a result of applying evolutionary science then you really have nothing at all.

The ability of the bible to predict is unmatched. To discover anything we need more than belief based theories.Nothing has been discovered using TOE! Any discoveries involving evolution have to do with the present time. It has to do with how things evolve now. Don't worry about what other beliefs can discover or not.
Show us anything that is due to a first life form? Show us anything discovered and used in the world that is due to you being related to a flat worm?

Good grief. You are still here. Why are you wasting your time with a bunch of amateurs so obviously and clearly beneath you? Rather than focussing on persuading the Nobel prize committee of your genius? The man that overthrew evolutionary biology. The Newton/Darwin/Einstein/Pythagoras of our time.It’s almost as if you were a crank......

You can start by explaining the discovery of the example already cited. Tiktaalik

quote:

---

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

​

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

---

Verification through prediction leading to discovery.When was the last time creationism resulted in the prediction and subsequent discovery of anything at all........?

I could ask you the same thing. The reason Newton/Darwin/Einstein/Pythagoras are remembered is that they gave a correct explanation of physics/biology/geometry. What Darwin didn't do is correctly quantify his theory but he did recognize qualitatively the two fundamental processes of evolution, competition (what Darwin called the struggle for existence), and adaptation. Does anyone remember the most important flat-earther of all time? Because that will be like remembering the most famous fish evolves into mammals clique member. Do you think that finding a fossil of an aquatic animal (or some land animal that died and ended up) in river sediment is some startling discovery as unusual a specimen it might be? What exactly does this fossil tell you about the physics and mathematics of evolution? Zero, nothing, zilch, nada. If you want to understand the physics and mathematics of evolution, you have to consider real, measurable, and repeatable empirical examples of the process. And not Tiktaalik, not Australopithecus, not archidumbtrex, tell you anything about the physics and mathematics of evolution. Why can't you explain anything about DNA evolution with fossils? The reason is you can't describe what is going on at the molecular level with gross anatomy. That's like trying to explain quantum mechanics with classical physics. If you want to know how many replications it takes to make a transitional step in a DNA evolutionary process, you have to study and understand evolutionary experiments such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments. And these experiments show that each transitional step (mutation) takes about a billion replications. So, if Tiktaalik is some kind of transitional form to a tetrapod, you should have vast numbers of these fossils in your riverbed and that just for a single mutational transitional step.So, where does that leave you? It leaves you with the argument that the DNA evolution of bacteria somehow works differently than more complex replicators. Try recombination. Taq has. Of course, Taq doesn't understand the mathematics of recombination. Try some kind of lateral gene transfer. Maybe Tiktaalik caugth a viral infection that gave it the coding and regulatory genes to produce limbs. That sounds like the kind of thing you should teach to naive school children so that they will understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. These children will be totally prepared to deal with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. Maybe you fossil tea-leaf readers and you in the fish evolves into mammals clique think this is wise to teach to children. I think you are introducing insanity into our educational system and it is showing.