Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

I didn't render an opinion on what Kruselnicki said. You made a completely unsupported claim and never provided any documentation for what he said. Given your history there's no reason to trust your claim, so why comment on its content.What I actually said is that whenever you say anything that can be verified, almost invariably it's wrong. Again, you're the cause of all your problems because you say a great many things that turn out to be untrue or illogical. The purpose of this forum is to improve understanding through discussion, and people are informing you of your errors, fabrications and irrationality. You can take this information and improve your understanding, or you can disregard it and/or fight it (the choice of most creationists).--Percy

Again you are simply showing that you are not just ignorant but willfully ignorant.I have in fact said just the opposite, that ¹⁴C dating is irrelevant to whether or not Evolution is a fact and the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the variety of life we see.Now ¹⁴C dating is another of the hundreds of proofs that neither of the Biblical Floods ever happened. And yet another example of willful ignorance. No expert in chemistry or physics has been able to find any reason that ¹⁴C dating might even be suspect. In fact reality is just the opposite; the experts continually increase the accuracy of ¹⁴C dating and every new technology that has been developed provides direct support and confirmation of ¹⁴C dating.But if you would actually learn the answers to the questions I posed you would see why ¹⁴C dating is so disastrous to the Snake Oil salesmen that try to pedal the Young Earth nonsense.

And have the thread filled with abuse? What for?

We're not giving you abuse. We're just giving you the truth and you think it's abuse. (apologies to HST)Seriously, how can you complain about being called to task for your many errors, fabrications and chains of illogic? Do you think they should just be ignored, that we should pretend they didn't happen? Also, they've become an impenetrable barrier preventing discussion of the actual topic.If you begin confining yourself to statements that are true and make sense then the criticisms and complaints about you will greatly diminish.--Percy

quote:

---

(your wiki link): He holds 'a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics and Mathematics, a Master of Biomedical Engineering, and a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, he has studied Computer Science as well as reading for a Master of Science (Qualifying) degree in Astrophysics. He has worked as a physicist, a tutor/research assistant, a filmmaker, a car mechanic, a road manager, a taxi driver, a scientific officer in a hospital, a t-shirt manufacturer, a doctor, an academic, an author, a public speaker, a television presenter and reporter, a script writer, a weather man, a radio panelist, science reporter, writer and presenter, and a script consultant.[4]

---

Sounds a bit like Australia's answer to Bill Nye the Science Guy ...So what is "Dr Karl's" take on evolution, 14C dating and the age of the earth? Climate change?What are his peer reviewed articles on these subjects? (none?)His book "Munching Maggots, Noah's Flood and TV Heart Attacks and other cataclysmic science moments" says that "Noah's Flood" was likely local and limited to the Black Sea ... do you agree with him on this? Which is a fair comment ... if it is backed up with data on the proportions of students taken in by Christian schools compared to public schools, otherwise it would be an unsupported assumption.Is this trend similar to the one shown in Percy's graph for the amount of acceptance of students by the different sects?Or is this something that would only change the results by <10% (rather insignificant to the overall trend).Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Correct or not, he is not a top scientist, and he is only one person. "Top scientists" plural is what Percy objected to. But of course you don't address the real issues.

Well, three answers.Firstly, almost as soon as scientists discovered radioactive decay, they set about seeing if the rate varied according to external conditions such as temperature and pressure. You can read about this here.Secondly, they understand radioactive decay in principle, they have the quantum theory. They know that what you describe shouldn't take place. Of course, we can imagine that they're wrong, but this wouldn't just mean that they were wrong about radiometric dating, it would mean they were wrong about particle physics generally. And they seem quite good at it, they use this knowledge to produce practical results. Science is all one thing, you can't just unpick one thread from that seamless fabric, you have to tear it all apart to get rid of the one bit you don't like.Third, we can test radiometric dating against objects of a known age --- this was of course the very first thing scientists did after they thought of radiocarbon dating. It would be funny if it works every time we can check it directly, but fails when we can't. (See here and here: the second article discusses dating methods in general, and how they all fit together.) Well, there's something you could start a thread about --- but it might make more sense yet to read the threads we already have.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Just a little more info for Colbard. It just occurred to me that even for coins that do include carbon, that carbon would have been mined, not taken from the atmosphere. Mined carbon will always be older than 50,000 years.--Percy

But you have scarcely argued for creationism. How is it meant to get a fair trial if the counsel for the defense is asleep on the job. But the "slapping around" is down to the quality of your arguments. You seem to be more interested in making snide remarks than in raising scientific issues. When you do the latter --- as with your recent question about beta decay --- you will be met with a civil and factual response. When you resort to vacuous rhetoric, you will be met with mockery and derision.

I tend to agree that categorizing all Christians as less intelligent than any other group or demographic is likely wrong and pretty silly; however there is the Christian Cult of Ignorance that enfolds all the Fundamentalists and most who identify as Biblical Christians that is demonstrably far less educated and far more ignorant than almost any other demographic.Anyone today that claims the Earth is young, that evolution is not fact, that either of the Biblical Floods ever happened, that Exodus happened as described in the Bible or the Conquest of Canaan happened as described in the Bible are at best showing willful ignorance, delusion or just plain lying.But none of that is related to intelligence or what should be taught in schools. As I pointed out back in Message 32:

quote:

---

I believe that if we hope to ever get an educated citizenry we need to teach evolution (a science subject) and also teach about religion (a social studies or sacred studies subject).

​

As I ask in the thread about Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula, "Should Sacred Studies, the study of religions, their history, their effects on society, the basic tenets of each and inter-relationships be taught as part of the general public education in the US"?

​

My answer is "most certainly."

​

We cannot ignore the effects that religion has had on the world and all of us living through those effects. Kids should learn that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God, the basic tenets of the Eight Fold Path, the writings of Confucius and Mencius, what Taoism says, the Vedas, Greek, Roman, Germanic and Norse mythology.

​

Kids should understand the horrific acts done in the name of religion, particularly the Genocide carried out by Christianity.

---

Edited by jar, : that ----> than

Why would you say that when you've never tried? He didn't say that. No-one has ever said that. NO.I don't know where you're getting this from, but carbon dating is hardly ever used to support any evolutionary idea. If I think of all the evidence I'd adduce if I was writing a book called Why Evolution Is Right, I wouldn't mention a single date produced by carbon dating. You are being wrong about the wrong thing.Which suggests to me that you have never looked at the evidence for evolution, or you'd know that yourself. You'd have noticed the complete absence of references to carbon dating.

But if you agree with their methods of deduction and analysis, why disagree with the conclusions they deduce from the data that they analyse?

In your opinion, what would have been a proper response to your coin story, or to your explanation of fossil sorting? Even you know that the coin story is no rational reason not to accept carbon dating. We also know that hydraulic sorting is insufficient to explain the order of fossils.If you want some idea of yours to receive some serious consideration, your going to have to do better than repeat discredited ideas that we've heard before. You've come across as a weak whiner from nearly the start of your participation here. You stumbled upon a Evolution vs Creationist debate forum where non acceptance to your ideas should have been expected. But it turns out that your method of debate is to spout mysticism and that you find challenges uncomfortable. Even when we discussed things on your terms you couldn't find evidence or Biblical support for what you were saying. Why are you even on a debate site? You have nothing to offer, and you don't like the easily anticipated response to nonsense.

No. Alpha and beta particles have no effect on decay rates. Where do you get the idea that "the earth radiates alpha and beta particles as if it has a surplus?". The earth contains radioactive materials some of which decay by alpha and beta decay.Neutrons could affect the percentage of C-14 in a sample, and sometimes we do find that to have occurred. But the result is to make samples seem to new and not too old. I can understand that. Quite frankly, what you are describing is the probably pretty common among Creationists. You don't have to understand evolution, cosmology, or carbon dating in any detail to reject them. Because there is no question that those things are inconsistent with your interpretation of Genesis. You probably won't want to get into a debate about this. Your ideas are going to be challenged and evidence is going to be asked for.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, if you actually have objective empirical evidence that you can present clearly there should be no problem.If you evidence is similar to your coin story then yes you could expect a similar response and for the same reason: you need to substantiate claims with objective empirical evidence.If you enter an axe fight with a wet noodle you can expect the noodle to be sliced and diced by everyone skeptical of your claims.But would be interesting to compare your evidence to what Faith has provided ... and see if it is any better.On the other hand, if you want to review the evidence against a world wide flood you can start with reading Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? (it can be reopened for comments) ...Enjoy.