Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

That's one of the meanings, words can be ambiguous. You should try mathematics but your problem is that you aren't pretending.

You told me to look it up and I did. You used the word by itself, with no context, so that's the meaning that fits.If you're not running away, you could try addressing the actual issues. For example:
1. Why can't you provide any evidence that your ideas produce MEDICAL results?
2. Why are you trying to promote your ideas HERE, where there is no chance of them having any medical results? By the same token, you should stop trying English. You're not fooling anybody.

Investigations of orbital evolution? Tell us an example, and show how this is used to show space and time were always the same?
Even though laws in the distant universe are not something that affects what earth laws were like in the past, do show how 'orbital evolution' shows us what you claim? Specific example...As for Oklo, can you prove that all those sites got dunked miles under and resurfaced as needed?"He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface."Natural Nuclear Reaction Powered Ancient Geyser | Live ScienceThere are shifts all over the world. Show us why this small area got dunked, or you might as well claim New York got dunked and resurfaced also. (hint: you just need it to have happened for your fable chain to have happened)Edited by dad, : No reason given.Edited by dad, : No reason given.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

No problem, if you can't refine 'nope' into a clear point, we get it.

But your blinkered focus on drug resistance stops you from looking at how evolution has actually occurred. Species exist. That is a fact. According to your theory there is no common descent so each species must have originated independently.How does that work?Do you accept geology? And astronomy? Do you accept that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?Your relentless focus on the minutiae of drug resistance doesn’t provide any context or answers to the big scientific questions. It’s a special case extrapolation gone mad.

You don't see it because you only have one eye. The Kishony experiment based on antimicrobial drug-resistance is not the only well-measured example of DNA evolution. You also have the well-measured Lenski experiment that uses starvation as the selection pressure and DNA evolution works the same way in that experiment. The empirical evidence that eukaryotic DNA evolution also works the same way is now becoming more available. But if you have a rational argument that DNA evolution works differently for different selection conditions, you should make that argument now. You won't. With respect to the notion of common descent, some simple replicator in the primordial soup + time = a Straggler, forget it. You can't even explain all the genetic differences between humans and chimps in a million generations (10,000,000 years and 10 years/generation). The accounting rules for DNA evolution don't even close to balancing the books on that one. I'm showing you how DNA evolution works and the way that biologists and population geneticists use this math to do their DNA phylogenetics is totally wrong. The way they use it, you could find some homologous piece of DNA from a banana and show that you are closely related. I took a college course in geology many years ago and never studied astronomy but if their work is anything like what biologists have done with the subject of evolution, I wouldn't take anything they say at face value. I'm old enough to remember that the evolution of drug-resistance was a major supporting argument for the theory of evolution. All I have done is run the numbers and it is not me that has done the extrapolation gone mad. All I have done is put the variables mutation rate and the number of replications in the correct mathematical context. When you do, it becomes readily apparent why it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary transition step. And it doesn't matter what the selection pressure is. Check out the Lenski experiment which uses starvation as the selection pressure and the same math applies. You should check it out yourself and try to find any empirical example which contradicts this math. You won't find one.

public schools are harmful, draconian places where creative and critical thought is actively discouraged.a more accurate term for public school is holding container for humanity's future.evolution nor intelligent design should be taught in these ghettos of thought, controlled by rapacious administrators and teachers unions that suck every last dime from their populace.public school is not a place of learning. evolution and intelligent design do not receive the vital nuance they deserve in their instruction.

Public schools haven't always been like this and be careful, churches can be like this as well.

The vital nuance they deserve in my opinion is a flush.

what's wrong with intelligent design?

His objection is probably that Intelligent Design isn’t explicitly Young Earth.However, there are plenty of reasons why Intelligent Design does not belong in schools. Even if it were a fringe position in science it wouldn’t belong there.But it’s worse than that. Intelligent Design covers everything from Young Earth Creationism to Behe’s idea that God occasionally makes genetic adjustments (and he hopes to find an example one day). Which do you teach in science classes? And why?

macroevolution is a fairy tale. there is zero evidence that the eye evolved after selective competition in nature, as evolutionists claim.it's a story that evolutionists tell themselves over and over. that slight mutations led to competitive benefit and an eye "arms race" took place. there is no evidence that this is actually possible.the human eye is irreducibly complex regardless of the stories evolutionists like to tell themselves.u can put evolution in a class on pagan myths.if you're going to put a myth in a science class like the ToE, you may as well save place to bookend it with intelligent design.the ToE is a narrative, like any other, and has no basis in reality.we are objectively created by God.we continue to neglect our special brand of consciousness. we are different than other species. we are completely self aware and capable of philosophical limitlessness of quandary.the postmodern way is to ignore the reality that the human is fundamentally intellectually different from other species.human eyes can appear as nebulas in microcosm, and yet you parade your truth, but in your heart, you know Christ is Lord. He's the only god that died for you and your pitiful existence, and the only god who ever could.

So you disagree with your leader?Yesterday, Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, said that Darwinian evolution is real, and so is the Big Bang, according to the Telegraph. Elsewhere in his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope said:When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so, Francis said.The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine

quote:

---

macroevolution is a fairy tale

---

You say that, but there is strong evidence that says that it happened - and there are Young Earth Creationists who argue that it did happen - and even quicker than scientists would say.

quote:

---

there is zero evidence that the eye evolved after selective competition in nature, as evolutionists claim.

---

There may be little direct evidence of how it happened, but that isn’t a block. When we have a known mechanism and the evidence is consistent with it we don’t suddenly jump off and assume that something else did it.

quote:

---

the human eye is irreducibly complex regardless of the stories evolutionists like to tell themselves.

---

Even if that were true (and it isn’t) irreducible complexity is not a bar to evolution.

quote:

---

we are objectively created by God.

---

In your opinion. Which is subjective,

quote:

---

we continue to neglect our special brand of consciousness. we are different than other species. we are completely self aware and capable of philosophical limitlessness of quandary.

---

Of course it is impossible to read the minds of other species, yet we do have evidence of self-awareness. Also, we cannot know the mental capacities of the extinct hominids.

quote:

---

human eyes can appear as nebulas in microcosm, and yet you parade your truth, but in your heart, you know Christ is Lord. He's the only god that died for you and your pitiful existence, and the only god who ever could.

---

If that were true - and it isn’t- it would be an even stronger reason for rejecting Creationism.

No, evolution needs the flush. God did design intelligently of course.