Creationism as truth should not be taught in schools (Contender: Con)

The fact that you need to point out a grammar mistake (not really a mistake) as your evidence displays how much content you actually have. "As the rise of the highly contradictory theory of evolution reigns in today's society, should we still teach creationism as actual truth in schools?" It means evolution contradicts creation greatly, not evolution is contradictory. I apologize if this is confusing as I am still improving my English. "How at Earth's beginning did the Fish form, to date Science has not ever been able to produce an ovum from any method other than extraction from an adult specimen? Evidence? I think not." I would like to end the "origin of life" or "preexisting" matter as I already have addressed it in the last round. Last round, I said: "Life started as simple self-replicating particles, such as viruses. How did this start does not concern evolution, evolution explains the diversity, the origins are left to abiogenesis". This is not an evasion, it's just that this is not relevant to the debate. "this time apes, notice apes become MEN no longer, They just STAY apes?" What? If you are implying that because men evolved from apes, why are there still apes, please know that when England colonized America, England itself can still exist. Other than that, I cannot comprehend your sentence. "Lest we forget 8.7 separate species inhabit the earth ". ONE ovum to become, insect, amphibian, mammal..." First of all, as I have said in the last round, at the start of life, single celled organisms do not need an ovum to reproduce. And please learn what an ovum is before throwing the term in every paragraph. For this point, take a look at reproduction. A family tree having 3 children in every generation would easily become a very large family on the 100th generation, what is needs is time. And time is what the Earth has, 4 billion years of it. A few of say, wolves, under a relationship with humans in the past would easily have different adaptive characteristics, and now there's 339 breeds of dog. If just one split path can produce so many variations, imagine how much you will have given 4 billion years of time, with many split paths going their own way and splitting again simultaneously. "how it produced a creature who at infancy could find its own food, water, shelter?" I have already explained how evolution basically works in the last round. It started with a single celled organism, not a direct infant. I would be surprised if Con actually read my arguments. "[Evolution is] repeatedly confirmed? but only in reports!" I think Con expects it to be confirmed in the Bible. But fortunately he acknowledges that there are scientific reports documenting this, a huge improvement from the first round. Now, I know this is irrelevant to evolution, but abiogenesis has increasingly much evidence. The Miller-Urey experiment and similar others demonstrated that most amino acids, a basic chemical of life, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds in conditions like Earth in its early times. Given that this hypothesis has actual empirical evidence to support it, but we are not 100% sure that this is true, does this mean creation must be true? If A has evidence and is not fully certain to be true, does that mean B must be true? If B is only mentioned in one source - a book written thousands of years ago? Does that count as reliable evidence for anything? Con is using the easy way out. We've all heard of the God-of-the-gaps argument: if we can't be sure about something, that means God did it, which explanatory power is just about the same as "magic did it". Nothing goes wrong with magic, I'm sure. But just as people had widely used it as an explanation to why things fall down before Newton discovered gravity, it faded away in favor of the more knowledgeable answer. Same as the origins of species. When we are not fully sure yet, that doesn't mean creation must be true as it doesn't mean magic made things fall down. That means we should find out more, find out more of how the natural world really works, just like Newton was researching gravity we are researching abiogenesis now. "Honestly which is harder to believe. That a single creature formed without an ovum and morphed into 8.7 Million separate species (of which No Evidence currently exists)" I thought you have acknowledged the evidence in earlier paragraphs. "which we have only been able to find 6 of what we believe are transitional fossils" Not true. Wikipedia has a whole list of types of transitional fossils. First misquoting Darwin and now outright lying - I wonder if anything you say is trustworthy. "Or and intelligence far greater than our own and able to create and control environments and conditions placed life here through creation" Which only evidence is a book written thousands of years ago, which is not reliable as evidence. Reasons in Round 2. "THIS is why science has not been able to replicate the process" The Miller Urey experiment has been able replicate several organic compounds. "And it is because of this all living things appear to have Human DNA" No they don't. It's all living things from the same class have similar DNA because they were evolved from the same common ancestor. I am impressed by your capability to lie, sir. "This is why evolution is a bad thing. it"s bad because it like pro works to DISTRACT people from coming to the Knowledge of God." Bad or good, comforting or not, desirable or painful, truth remains truth. Other babble about how you only need to believe God exists to see God, threats of Hell, kindness of the metaphysical being, how He offers you a gift but you'll receive it when you're dead (just like deciding to purchase a house but you cannot see it until you've bought it), comforting talks by an imaginary friend, with an ending that again threatens people. Sorry, I got a little mad. But I think I can safely say all atheists get a little mad when people say something like, "don't agree with me? You shall meet your judge come death!" Back to the debate. It seems this has turned into a creation vs evolution debate. I say that because I think both sides agree on teaching the truth to children, but have different ideas on what is the truth. I am still waiting for Con to actually show what evidence there is for creation, rather than pointing out his incomprehension about evolution. But sadly, I'm afraid I will not be able to refute those (if there is) as this is my last round for this debate. Is this some kind of tactic? Now, to sum up my points from the entire debate. Round 2: -Gave the evidence for evolution, and explained those what those evidence means and how they are observable and testable. -Provided reasons why the Bible is not reliable as evidence. -Provided evidence to why creation is false. I am glad Con is incapable of refuting them. Round 3: -Explained why a scientific theory is highly credible. -Refuted Con's attempt at discrediting evolution regarding the coelacanth and crocodiles. -Credible sources provided. -Exposed Con's dishonest quote mining. -Concreted evidence to why creation is false. -Explained the futility of Con's random images as evidence. -Explained how genetics can be used to discredit the "first humans". -Explained the magnitude of evidence which evolution has. -Explained how life first diversified, and the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Round 4: -Explained the irrelevance of abiogenesis in this debate again. -Explained how so many species can be evolved with ample time. -Restated the first organisms were not a live infants to Con. -Explained how abiogenesis not being proven does not make creation true. -Stated the evidence of abiogenesis. -Pointed out Con's false statements. * * * I thank the audience for reading. Any votes, either side, are greatly appreciated (but please do read both side's arguments before voting). Lastly, I thank Con for this debate. It has been a great time debating with you sir.