Creationism should be banned from science classes

Well, Well, Well. . . Silly me for thinking that my opponent would make this debate about the ethos of education or tolerance of the beliefs of others. Upon setting up this debate I muttered to myself: "Surely nobody could deny evolution and defend young-earth creationism". How wrong I was. I never even dreamt that in a few hours time I would be defending reason and science against a tidal wave of nonsensical, Naive nonsense. But here we are. So, To business - why is creationism bullsh**? Putting aside the truly remarkable mathematic reasoning of my opponent, His opening rant is so oozing with flippant, Fallacious flops of logic that I fear I may not have the time nor energy to destroy them all. We are told from the offset that the earth was created and there is no other reason. Just the earth or the universe as well? I am assuming that you believe the moon exists right? That is about the laziest and most unscientific argument I've ever heard. That because it seems hard for you to comprehend a natural explanation for the creation of earth or living organisms then therefore it must be god. It is called the fallacy of ignorance. Whether you believe that god created the universe or not doesn't matter. Creationism is more than just a belief that the universe was created. Creationism in the religious sense (which is what we are discussing) is the view that God created all the living organisms that we see today and life did not arise by natural processes. My opponent even advocates that this happened only thousands of years ago and not 4. 543 billion years ago as 99% of scientists believe. My opponent seems to claim that it is really unlikely that the earth's facets such as life were created naturally. I have no idea where is ridiculous number for it came from but I do math at school and believe me when you are doing probability the numbers need to be lower than 1. Your number is not a probability. It's just a big number which makes literally no mathematical sense in this context. Aside from the math malfunction, Natural explanations for the facets of the earth are literally the opposite of chance. Because a natural explanation literally means a 100% chance of something occurring. E. G. There is a 100% chance that if I drop a ball from a height it will hit the ground. Evolution is literally a combination of billions and billions of these small natural occurrences which have a 100% chance of happening in the conditions they are in. Such as there is a 100% chance that a certain intensity of UV radiation will cause this base pairing to duplicate and there is then a 100% chance of that gene being more advantageous in a certain environment. Therefore, Natural explanations are literally the opposite of happening by chance and to claim that god created everything on earth is quite frankly a lazy and ignorant get-out for explaining something that seems complicated. My opponent then hilariously cited the pseudo-scientific likes of Michael Behe, Scott Minnich and Ralph Seelke. All of whom have been roundly rejected by the scientific community for being bad scientists who espouse religiously motivated nonsense. They are famously the proponents of Irreducible complexity - an argument which has been so massively debunked it is not even worth explaining how awful it is. So here is an article by respected American biologist Ken Miller: http://www. Millerandlevine. Com/km/evol/design2/article. Html There is a reason why ID proponents get discredited - ID is so dumb. It has been so unbelievably trampled on by the overwhelming evidence otherwise that any scientist which backs it is just in denial. And then it got even better. . . My opponent misrepresented the findings of Mary Schweitzer (who is not a young-earth creationist). Her discovery of soft tissue does not at all suggest that dinosaurs died out only a short time ago. If so, My opponent literally implies that they believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans. WTF. This scientific paper explains how her findings can be explained and that the tissues are not evidence of young fossils but actually and I quote: " unlikely to be preserved dinosaurian tissues but the product of common bacterial activities. " https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC2483347/ My opponent then ended their short and remarkable post-truth rant with an assertion that the beauty of the earth means that it must have been created. Really? This is so silly. Just because something is beautiful that doesn't mean it can't have been naturally formed. A beautiful valley can be formed by river erosion and not god. I kindly accept my opponent's invitation to prove evolution. My opponent seems to claim that evolution is only a theory. I ask them: have they ever heard of gradational theory? In science the term theory is used to explain that something is an accepted fact and not that scientists actually aren't sure. That's a misunderstanding of scientific convention. So, My opponent wants transition fossils. We are always sold this myth that there aren't any. Let's start with homo erectus, Homo habilis, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo rhodesiensis. . . The list goes on. And that's just human evolution. There are so many transition fossils: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=o92x6AvxCFg Furthermore, Having decoded the human genome, The genetic information completely backs up Darwinian evolution. It portrays a perfect family tree of life which reveals the shared ancestry of all organisms. https://eveloce. Scienceblog. Com/16/dna-proves-evoution/ Evolution is also contingent on an old earth (certainly not 6000 years). It requires billions of years. And, Quite conveniently, The earth is billions of years old. I'm not just talking about one dating method here. I'm talking about hundreds (literally) of dating methods and guess what? They all point in the same direction - 4. 543 billion years. Potassium to argon, Carbon, Uranium to lead, Meteorite, Cosmic rays, Ice cores, Cooling rates. . . They all point in the same direction. Are you seriously arguing that experts in geology, Using multiple different dating methods, Making hundreds of measurements, Spending years designing perfect experiments in order to mitigate other variables are lying? https://geomaps. Wr. Usgs. Gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth. Html So, We know that the earth is old. We know that our DNA models Darwinian evolution, We know that there are millions of intermediate fossils which reveal our evolution from species to species, We also observe evolution with our own eyes: https://www. Sciencedaily. Com/releases/2008/04/080417112433. Htm Now, Is that enough facts for you? I would like to ask you for a few facts. Find me a single fact or scientific study which proves young-earth creationism. Explain to me how humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Explain to me which creation story you have picked. Please pick from the list below: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths Dear audience, Evolution is true. But creationism is scientifically illiterate. I have no problem with people of faith. Most American christians don't believe in young earth creationism anyway and the Pope says evolution is a fact. People have the right to believe what they want. And children have the right to know about people's different beliefs. But creationism is not science and to allow it in the science class is brainwashing and lying to them.