Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

You keep using that word "assumption". I do not think it means what you think it means.The constancy of how the Universe works is a conclusion. References already supplied

Replication of past events is not required. Replication of observations of the effects of past events is required and is.

I note you did not mention the substance of my post. None of those are incompatible with the theory of evolution. You are mindless regurgitating PRATTS (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Covered in great detail at An Index to Creationist Claims.Of course you won't look at it, having no interest in reality.

We do not, unless someone produces some evidence of Noah's existence and when he existed. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

How could a flood deposit the KT layer?Exactly what people like Noah has the Nation of Israel recorded, and where are those recordings?The smart money is on no meaningful response.

Yes. Sedimentary does not necessarily mean laid underwater. No. Iridium is very very rare on Earth, and there's no reason to believe there's oodles of it underground. 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,...). Farther away it is thinner and is a complex mixture of tsunami debris and more impact material. Farther yet it's thinner yet and loaded with impact material. Finally, farther yet, and comprising most of the world-wide layer, it's about a millimeter thick. See THE GLOBAL STRATIGRAPHY OF THE CRETACEOUS-TERTIARYBOUNDARY IMPACT EJECTAfor more detail.Your turn. You need to explain, with evidence, your claim that the layer is a remnant of a fludde: the source of the iridium, the meteorite material, the impact material, and the thickness variation of the layer as a function of distance from Chicxulub.

Cool. Note that the Bible is not a history or science book. Do you have any extra-biblical evidence for Noah/Gilgamesh actually existing, and the time at which he existed?

You said you would always provide evidence for your claims. We knew that was false when you wrote it, and we have seen that we were right. You're just making up BS as you go along. You are far too ignorant to have any useful or interesting discussion with you.Bye-bye

Tree rings form because of seasonal variation in growth rates. Mostly. Sometimes a ring is missing or two grow in a year. Pretty much all the trees missed a ring in 1816, Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia. Rings are sampled by coring with a hollow bit. If you know the date of one ring, usually the outermost, you can count back to its inception.If you can find a dead tree of the same species in the same location, you can see if its outermost rings line up with some of the rings in a specimen for which you know the date, and then you can count back to the dead tree's inception. Repeat enough times and you can go back to about 8,000 years before present. YECs don't like this. See Crossdating - The Basic Principle of Dendrochronology.14C dating of the rings and several other techniques allow us to build a "calibration curve", which is used to adjust raw 14C dates to compensate for varying 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere over time. Here's a portion of one: The horizontal axis is age measured by various non-14C methods, and vertical axis is raw 14C dates of the same samples.In the real world matching rings involves sophisticated signal processing, trying every possible alignment, and getting as many overlapping specimens as possible to increase certainty. Here's a plot of the samples from Graybill and Funkhouser, the Methuselah Walk chronology from the White Mountains of California (bristlecone pines}. If you are interested in sordid details, there's a debate with a YEC where Pingu is working through processing that dataset: The Fake Science of Trying to Extend Dendrochronology Back Before Noah's Flood - Page 91. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

He doesn't have a model. I don't see any way to apply a nonexistent model.