Should evolution and creationism be taught side-by-side in public schools?

@Pinkstarburst Yes, it would go over REALLY well to teach the kids creations myths like the Egyptian one where the Earth was created when one of the gods masturbated.

@Pinkstarburst Creationism is science not religion. Evolution is religion not science. Funny how those two get mixed up all the time.

@hippyjoe1955 You just do you Joe

@Pinkstarburst You obviously have not been following this thread. I defended creationism using science. Those who supported evolution used religion.

@hippyjoe1955 creationist make their claims after following the scientific methodology is that what you're saying
And science just makes something up does it?

@chibs Yes creationism much better matches what we see in all life forms and even the entire functioning of the universe than does random chance as understood by evolution. Blind uncaring forces do not bring about life. It is simply impossible based on cutting edge science as practised by brilliant scientist and technologists. I had to smile. I read an article by a leading organic chemist who bemoaned the FACT that science was not getting closer to creating life because the more they find out about life forms the more levels of complexity they are discovering. Darwin's protoplasm cell is so much more complex than anyone can even imagine that even with a cell to copy we can't do it.

@hippyjoe1955 what's random chance got to do with evolution?

@chibs evolution is nothing if not random chance. Do not understand what evolution is? It is causeless causation.

@hippyjoe1955 yeah, you're just repeating the claim I asked you to explain yet still not explaining it

@chibs As are you. Do you have any original thought or do you want to keep on reciting what you learned in high school. Your lack of science is very very evident.

@hippyjoe1955 so now you're saying that as well as you just repeating your claim I too am repeating your claim.
Are you alright?

@chibs So when you can explain how the universe was created and how delicately the universal constants came to be so fine tuned..... Your turn.

@hippyjoe1955 we're talking about evolution, except you suddenly don't seem too keen about that

@chibs Yes we are talking about evolution. I am simply pointing out that you can't have evolution without life. How did that life evolve? Well sadly it can't happen. the chemistry simply doesn't work.

@hippyjoe1955 are you asking how evolution works? I can probably help you with that question

@chibs I am simply pointing out the the failure of materialism. Evolution is simply one part of it. There is no way the universe can be explained using only material as an explanation. Simply can't be done. Thus you keep dodging on the idea that evolution must have happened in the non living in order to cause life which then evolved further. You simply make the arbitrary starting point of a living being. Such a thing could not have evolved.

@hippyjoe1955 and again you're drifting away from the topic. Evolution doesn't happen in non-living objects. Evolution is strictly for living organisms.
Perhaps you're thinking that evolution is synonymous with change in general. If so then nah, not so. Evolution is change in a specific and tightly defined sphere.
Your error is understandable because lay people often use the word loosely and inappropriately, and that causes the sort of confusion you're displaying here.
At the end there you seem to jumping away from evolution again. As i said, evolution is what happens after life begins. Whatever's before that doesn't concern evolution, so let's stay on topic, OK?

@chibs let us put things this way. Either the first life form came to be through natural/material/evolutionary means or else it was created by something beyond nature/material/evolution. There is no other choice. Once you run into a road block in the process from nothing to everything you have to find a logical explanation. All options are on the table. Well the biggest brains on the planet that are looking at the chemistry say it can't be done by natural means.

@hippyjoe1955 Let's try again
Evolution is what happens after life has started.
No start of life = no evolution
I'm assuming you accept that there's life on Earth.
Concentrate on that word after

@chibs So how did life start in that it is able to evolve? How did the first life form develop the ability to reproduce? How did said life form evolve the ability to take in nourishment? How did said life form evolve the ability to detoxify by expelling its own wastes. Remember it had a very limited time in order to do all this. However that whole discussion is moot since you can't explain how the life form evolved to begin it all. Nice try but you are simply showing your lack of science. I bet you believe in a flat earth too.

@hippyjoe1955 very very very slowly - need you even ask? '
We seem to be getting somewhere in that you realise that evolution concerns what happens after life begins, even though you're now trying to condense enormous and detailed research areas into two or three questions.

@chibs And now if you could just open your tiny little mind and explain how through natural means (evolution) life began. If you say it was created then your theory is bust. If you can't explain it through evolution then your theory is bust. Either way you loose unless and until you explain how life came to be.

@hippyjoe1955 for the fourth or perhaps fifth time, evolution is what happens after life has begun.
Life did not begin because of evolution.
Evolution is the inevitable consequence of life beginning.
Evolution is not the cause of life beginning.

@chibs So you can't answer which means you know your theory is bust. Too Funny!!!! Have nice short existence before the big non existence besets you.