Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

We do know that Noah lived a certain time, ore or less. Jewish tradition also has Abraham being contemporary with him as well as Peleg. So the time to the flood is known within reasonable limits. The people who lived before that are catalogued as to how many years they lived, and when they had a son and how long he lived all the way to Adam.Any gaps you claim are invented.

No one said you need to accept evidence of historical realities. You thought you got to define what evidence was, and limit it to your beliefs?

The evidence all looks to me like there was a flood. Evidence like the KT layer that you interpret another way. The nation of Israel has recorded some people like Noah in the past. You do not get to wave away evidence.

Is that layer not sedimentary and worldwide? Does not that layer have in it stuff (iridium) that science claims comes from deep under the earth and space? That is the same places the flood waters are said to have come from. How could it not be evidence?
I suspect it will come down to your belief based dating schemes.Israel had a class of officials called scribes. Their job was to carefully copy and preserve the record of what is now called Scripture.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Please note that your opinion of what is history and accepted is rejected out of hand. The bible is a history book.

quote:

---

Yes. Sedimentary does not necessarily mean laid underwater.

---

So you can rule out the KT layer being laid underwater...how exactly? Let's look at that.

quote:

---

No. Iridium is very very rare on Earth, and there's no reason to believe there's oodles of it underground.

---

Or not! But even if most of it came from the heavens, when windows of heaven were opened, so what? The places science says it comes from are the same places flood waters came from.

quote:

---

Yes. But it's more complex than that. Near the Chicxulub Crater the layer is quite thick and chock full o' asteroid and impact material (shocked quartz, tektites,...).

---

Yes, I know, and the shocked/impacted material was impacted from below to above or above to below? You can prove the direction of impact...how?

quote:

---

farther yet, and comprising most of the world-wide layer, it's about a millimeter thick

---

From your link" alternative views also exist, mostly related to volcanism (Officer & Page 1996). The conflicting evidence seems to result from the complete alteration of the layer and the frequently strong bioturbation, which has led to different interpretations of the ejecta products.""Four types of ejecta deposits can be distinguished: (a) the distal settings, global in scale, where an ejecta layer that is a few millimeters thick has survived, (b) the continental Western Interior, with 1- to 2-cm-thick ejecta layers in coal-swamp deposits, (c) the Gulf of Mexico region, associated with high-energy clastic deposits, and (d) ejecta blanket deposits, up to 3.5 crater radii away from the crater rim."http://www.sciencebuzz.org/...mages/K-T_Boundary.preview.jpgHow big a layer would you expect if the flood was only a few months long before the world was underwater?

False. The interpretation of what we see in nature is not written. It is interpreted using beliefs by 'science'.

Or any evidence against that record.

You have your beliefs, why would I expect you to accept anything that doesn't fit into your little chosen box of beliefs?I accept the ancient record that Israel carefully carried down over ages as evidence of people that once lived. You are not in a position to say what is evidence or not, only to deny and reject evidences you don't like.

quote:

---

Please let science work out how God did it

---

No need, we were already told and science has no clue anyhow.

Nice vague statement of faith. Too bad it is wrong.

Why use the word evidence when you have no idea what it is? You were shown to post belief based claims using various evidences as a place to project your beliefs.

Claims of ratios being caused by the present nature, or tree rings etc are faith based. Rather than pretend everyone thinks they are evidence, simply prove that nature on earth was the same. Otherwise your claims are based on faith alone no matter what you call them.I notice you mention the bible. Funny how when people diss Scripture it is OK in a 'science' thread. They should change the name to 'blasphemy and biased against truth and God using the word science falsely' threads!Edited by dad, : No reason given.

How so? Simple, you assume trees grew in this nature (therefore slowly as today and that the rings represent yearly patterns) and you assume that isotope ratios were formed in this nature exclusively. Then you foist this belief on us as science. Then you silence opposing beliefs (in the forum in which you have been a regular and therefore part of it)

This is a science forum and you use it to recite foolish old wives tales that are blasphemous?