Resolved: Teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools.

To my opponent, you agreed to the terms set forth in round 1 of this debate by accepting the challenge, If you continue to assert that creationism should be valued equally to evolution you forfeit the debate, and I hope the judges will take note of this. If you did not agree with the terms then you should have voiced your opinion in the comments before you accepted the terms by accepting the debate, and they then resorted to an ad-hom in order to justify their choice to violate the terms. Now on to the debate. First, I never said that the debate should be limited to public schools. I simply stated that because they serve 90% of the students in this country, that their curriculums logically would be given more weight in this debate. I never said that private schools should be completely excluded. Contention 1 Refutation: My opponent started their contention 1 by stating that the fossil record supports that there was a flood. No, there may have been a huge flood, and I do not deny that, but there is no proof that that flood was biblical or caused by god. And while my opponent did prove that there possibly was a flood, they did not prove that there was a biblical flood. As that would require something like Noah’s Ark, or evidence of godly intervention. My opponent then proceeds to propagate a massive logical fallacy. Evolution does not depend on creationism; it simply requires another explanation of how the first life came to be. My opponent argues that because scientists have not explained where the first life came from, that creationism is the only possible explanation. Now this train of thought would be valid if creationism was the only theory on where life came from, but it is not (1) so therefore evolution does not depend upon creationist teachings. My opponent then argues that because 68% of Americans agree that god created humans that it has to be true. Well, 68% of Americans are obese, so does that make it healthier than being skinny (2). I would also like to remind my opponent that Adolf Hitler won 98.8% of the vote in 1936, did that make him morally, and politically better than anyone else in Germany (3)? There is no logical reason for that many people to believe in the myth of creationism. It also happens that by educational group, the least educated believe in creationism the most, and vice versa. (http://debate.org...) Graph in Link Also, my opponent did not link his to video on creationism by a man who’s degree is in mechanical engineering, so obviously he is credible to lecture on this topic. Along with all of their other arguments in this contention being unsourced. Contention 2 Refutation: My opponent even refutes their own contention in this argument. They argue that if both theories have a valid base to stand on, then they both should be taught. Evolution has valid evidence going for it as I have shown previously, creationism on the other hand…. Creationism relies upon the existence of a god, which is unproven Creationism relies upon a book with thousands of factual errors Creationism is heavily backed by the least educated segment of the population (Coincidence?) Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. So my opponent refuted their own point, and evolution stands as the more important, testable, and proven concept that should be taught to students over myths perpetuated from an antiquated book. Contention 3 Refutation: My opponent starts by calling the validity of my sources into question. The sources such as bible babble are in fact accurate because they deal with observable fact and scientific inaccuracies in the bible. I will list a few of the inaccuracies they point out as testimony for their validity. “According to Leviticus 11:5-6 Rabbits (Coney) chew their cud and because of this they are unclean.” Last time I checked, rabbits don't chew cud. “Isaiah 13:10 also says that the moon is a source of light. "moon shall not cause her light to shine."” Again this is another example of the Bible seeming to be inspired by man and limited to his own perception. “The ends of the earth isn't the only signs of the flat earth in the Bible. In Job 11:9 it says that heaven and hell's measurements are "Their measure is longer than the earth And broader than the sea".” How long is a sphere? There is no length in a sphere. Now a flat two dimensional object would have a length. It would also seem Ironic that my opponent rips on my sources and then cites “creationscience” (an oxymoron in itself) for one of their arguments. I have already proved that creationism is not a valid doctrine so I will not waste the characters here. I have also proven that Darwinian doctrine does not rely upon creationism. My opponent then goes into another angry rant about the validity of sources that I have already proven. My opponent then comes up with a 64% statistic (down from the early 68%, maybe support for the myth of creationism is dropping that fast!) and states that I ignored it. However, I have already refuted the point that “because a bunch of people believe in it, then it must be true”. Apparently, because 68% of Americans are obese, we should preach the doctrine of obesity in schools too. Well, with this debate I have shown that a valid scientific principle should be valued above a myth in school curriculums. My opponent has feebly tried to refute my point with religious doctrine, sources that are few and far between, and statistics that change over the course of the debate (64% or 68%, choose one!). (http://debate.org...) Picture in link Sources: 1. http://www.livescience.com... 2. http://www.ibtimes.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...