creationism is best for the science classrooms

"Your bible made the claims first, not I, so it is you who actually has the burden of proof." Nice cop out. The Bible does say that they exist and until you give a reason (other than your assumption that the Bible is false) to mistrust what the Bible says, you have no reason to say that they didn't exist. "A holy book is not evidence of the existence of such characters anymore than Harry Potter is evidence that wizards exist." Wrong. Harry Potter is clearly fictional. The author even said he was an imaginary character (http://www.hypable.com...). The Bible on the other hand was written by the people of the time period, includes actual historical events (http://www.christiananswers.net...), is supported by archaeology(https://carm.org...), and people in the Bible have been confirmed to have existed (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...). And until you can give an actual reason for why you discredit the Bible, my point still stands. "Since unicorns and life elsewhere in the universe isn't hard to disprove I would like to see you do it." I never said that I could disprove life existing elsewhere. All I said was that since there isn't any evidence supporting the theory, there is no real reason to believe that there is other life out there. As for the flying unicorns, they were used in fairy tales told by the people of the past. They were works of fiction like Harry Potter. That said, there were people that called rhinos unicorns. Anyway, the point is that since that they were used in works of fiction (the flying ones), it is completely reasonable to say that they do not exist. Therefore I have disproved their existence beyond a reasonable doubt. "We must have a different definition of meaning." I use the one that the dictionary uses. Meaning is the "end, purpose, or significance of something" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). "I don't believe in an ultimate meaning at all, there is no reason I should. I merely accept that when I die then I will most likely not exist." This goes against everything you have said in the debate so far. The very first thing you said to my claim about life being meaningless without God was this: "you saying that without a creator there is no purpose in life quite frankly offends me because I am atheist and have no shortage of purpose." But I am glad to see that you have changed your mind. "Can't be sure though, who knows, maybe I'll become one with the force and become a Jedi. You can't prove that I won't." Sure I can. You have to be a Jedi before you can become one with the force. Good luck trying to get Jedi powers my friend... "I have made all the points to refute your argument and frankly I believe you have helped my case with you reasoning." No...you have only retracted claims you have made and have not properly responded to any of my arguments. For example: You claimed that your life had a purpose...this round you now deny you have a purpose. You claimed that Adam and Eve did not exist...following rounds you said you would never say anything didn't exist for sure. You also made claims without supporting them. For example: You claimed that the belief in God is a delusion. Never once supported this. You claimed that the Bible's account of nature (whatever this means...you never explained) was incorrect. Never supported this. You claimed that there could be 1,000,000,000 twin earths out there. Never supported this. I could go on and on... But the biggest problem was that you never properly addressed my arguments. I first argued that Creationism gave the best explanation for the universe/life due to the odds of a life permitting universe. And you responded by saying that the numbers in my arguments may have been rigged. After I showed you why that was unlikely you dropped the argument and said that Lawrence Krauss has an explanation for why there is a life permitting universe. I then showed you why his argument was ridiculous and you officially said nothing else about the issue. Then we get to my second argument above the evidence for evolution. It could also be used to support Creationism! But my opponent never said anything about this argument. He just asserted that "I don't buy that creationism fits with any evidence (fossils, uranium dating of earth, DNA) in favor of evolution." But he never justified that statement. Lastly we get to my third argument about life being meaningless without God. He denied this until the very last round. So therefore I have showed that creationism should be taught in classrooms because it does a better job explaining how the universe/life came into existence, it fits the evidence just as well as evolution does (if not better), and because it teaches people that we have a purpose in life. I thank my opponent for a debate. That said, it was really disappointing to see that my argument was pretty much ignored.