Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

That is quite an admission, not knowing much about time. Then admitting you use light here!

It is evidence for the validity of Relativity. Which you asked for. So that makes it relevant. Relativity extends our knowledge to the transfishbowl regions as evidenced by its validity predicting what we'd see out there and given it uses the same rules to predict what we'd see cisfishbowl - it suggests that cisfishbowl and transfishbowl are actually all just one fishbowl following the same rules.It is pure madness for you to ask for evidence that things are the same over here as they are over there and then to dismiss that evidence on the grounds that it includes discussion about what happens here. OK, I won't. I haven't been doing that, would you like to pay attention before replying next time? It'd be appreciated.

Wasn't one of the tests that validated relativity the bending of light from a distant start around a massive object?

quote:

---

Tests of general relativity serve to establish observational evidence for the theory of general relativity. The first three tests, proposed by Einstein in 1915, concerned the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the bending of light in gravitational fields, and the gravitational redshift. The precession of Mercury was already known; experiments showing light bending in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919, with increasing precision measurements done in subsequent tests, and astrophysical measurement of the gravitational redshift was claimed to be measured in 1925, although measurements sensitive enough to actually confirm the theory were not done until 1954. A program of more accurate tests starting in 1959 tested the various predictions of general relativity with a further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.

---

When everything behaves the way the theory predicted, we have strong validation that the theory is correct and certainly a better explanation than Newton's Law of Gravity (which failed to account for Mercury's precession).And once again, if the effects of 'creation's' mind game are undetectable, occam's razor says it is ignorable -- until such time as there is evidence, detectable evidence, of the (whatever it is) has been found or presented.Because that is how science deals with such fantasies and unevidenced claims.Enjoy

I didn't say ".." I guess you can't even get a cut-n-paste right. Congratulations on commenting on something I didn't say. Next time get the quote right, then maybe you won't end up making a useless comment.I said that I don't think we know much about the nature of time. For instance, even though the equations of physics are symmetrical for time running either backwards or forwards, time seems to run in only one direction (that would be forwards, in case there was any doubt). We don't understand why that is. Is this some kind of big "Aha!" moment for you, that I use light here?This discussion doesn't belong in this thread, whose title is Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? and resides in the Education and Creation/Evolution forum. You should reply in an appropriate forum and thread. This is a Big Bang and Cosmology kind of topic, so the Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) thread is probably best. The Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread is in the Dates and Dating forum, and your topic doesn't really fit there.--Percy

As I pointed out back in Message 32" We need to educate our citizenry on the fact that religions, all religions, are the creation of man and that is true across the board.

NOT to the far universe. Example of something predicted in deep space? Gravitational lensing won't do. You see that effect out there is not known in detail, since we have so many unknowns. Distances to the stars and how big whatever is seeming to bend the light...for example. So, what else you got? You need to get the point that the issue is not what we have here in the fishbowl. The time here, and space is of no relevance to the time and space there. No one dismisses what goes on in your backyard, or orbiting the earth, or in the solar system (except for deep under the earth...but I digress)-- there is no need to dismiss the irrelevant. You don't accept distances based on trig?

Then tell us what is time exactly? If you use it to tell us about time far far away where the light comes from, it is an admission of truly not knowing.So, with all the things science doesn't know regarding the old ages they claim for evolution, NO it should not be taught in schools.Most of the evolving/adapting that is in the fossil record and used for evolution happened long ago and in what nature we don't know.There is no way we can claim evolution worked as it now does. Specifically, we cannot claim man left any remains in the former nature, that evolving took any great time then, or even that the offspring were the primary way creatures changed. For all we know the living animal could have evolved in that time. Science may not use any of the present state realities and life processes as a gauge to how things were because science does not know what laws were in place then.Science therefore is religion on these issues and should not be taught at all on origin issues.

Especially fake news origin sciences! Also kids should know man did not invent the bible. Unlike science, it is far far too evidenced and broad to be created by man.

Except it is filled with fallacies, contradictions, errors and absurdities and the evidence shows it is simply the creation of man as all honest observers will acknowledge.

Observing that time is passing now is all well and good for the here and now. It does not tell us what will pass in the future. The arrow of time may be a short shot for all we know!

Except, no. it is not anything like that.

Which is why schools need to teach the facts about religion to counter the utter ignorance that is typical of the Christian Cult of Ignorance, particularly in the US.It is important the the subject of religion be treated honestly and the dishonesty, particularly common among the Calvinist, Inerrant Bible cults be exposed.The two mutually exclusive flood myths should be taught as well as the two mutually exclusive creation myths and the two mutually exclusive God characters created by the earlier authors of the Genesis 2&3 god and the much later creators of the Genesis 1 god.These are not opinions but rather facts and should be addressed in public education. Then the two different orders of creation found in the myths should be compared to the evidence found in reality.The Earth was not created in the beginning. The Earth was not created before the sun. Not one of the critters mentioned in either of the Genesis Creation myths existed in the beginning of life here on Earth.It is time the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Dishonesty was exposed for the shame and farce it is in reality.All honest thinking Christians should be appalled by it.

Time in physics has a clear and unambiguous definition. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of a radiating cesium atom. We can see it. We know. Your "fishbowl" is a fiction. In public school science classrooms we teach the scientific consensus. Evolution has so much evidence that a scientific consensus has formed around the theory. There is overwhelming evidence that the natural physical laws of the universe have been unchanged for billions of years. Where is your evidence that evolution ever worked any differently? Given that evolution is based upon fundamental principles such as heredity and adaptation, how could it ever work differently? Human fossils over a couple hundred thousand years old have been found. So you accept evolution but believe it used to happen much faster? Any evidence of this, or is this just another idea you're making up. You're proposing that organisms evolved during their lifetime? How do you imagine this happening? There are all kinds of problems. How do all the cells in the organism change in the same way at the same time. When an organism evolves into a new species, there will be no organisms of the opposite sex to mate with. And so on. There's a certain consistency in the vacuity of your ideas, and it's because you think them up without first seeking supporting evidence. Yes, science does know what "laws were in place" in the past. There is no evidence they were ever any different. So when you want to say something bad about science you call it a religion? Way to go!Public school science classes should continue to teach the scientific consensus on all subjects.--Percy

If every day over the past 13.5 billion years (the age of the universe) you had placed a bet that the arrow of time would end the next day, you would have lost that bet about 5 trillion times. If you would like to place a bet with me that the arrow of time will end tomorrow I will take that bet every single day from now on. We can double the bet each day so that if you eventually win then you'll make your money back, though ironically without an arrow of time I won't have the time to pay you. There's no evidence to suggest that "the arrow of time may be a short shot". This is just another of your ill-advised ideas.--Percy

Oh, not only are you a mindless creationist troll, but you're also a Trumpista? Given the singular lack of mental acuity you have displayed so far, why am I not surprised?We've caught on, you should know. Whenever Trump starts trumpeting "fake news!", then we know that that news source was right on target. Wrong on all counts. Yes, Man did invent the Bible (Dude! Learn some basic English! Or is your native Russian still getting in the way?). There was even a Man-made committee consisting of humans which decided which sacred writings were to become canon (ie, be included in the Bible). Face the facts (something that creationists are infamous for not doing): Man did indeed invent the Bible. Please do yourself and everybody else a favor: learn something about the history of the religion that you falsely claim to follow, Christianity.Similarly, all religions are Man-made, as are all theologies. No god ever created any religion. It has always been Man who created religions. If you know of any specific religion that was ever created by a god, then do please feel free to point it out to us ... along with the evidence that it was created by any freaking god. Similarly, theology is fallible Man trying to understand what we can about the gods, who by definition are beyond our ability to understand.Now here's the kicker for mindless trolls like you. If you were really a creationist, what Man-made theologies about that Man-made document, the Bible, say would be meaningless. The only thing that would mean anything would be what the Creator had Created. If you truly believed that your god created the universe, then wouldn't you believe what that god had created? Instead of what Man had written and what Man had misunderstood and misinterpreted?What kind of idiot are you? You bend yourself into all kinds of knots in order to deny what the Creator had very clearly written in His Creation so that you can follow the false theologies of Man (AKA forsaking the Word of God in order to follow the Word of Man).We have far too many fucking idiots trying to run the world, including that epic loser in the Oval Office. We do not need more fucking idiots like you.