Evolution should be taught in all schools, contrary to creation.

Various creationists over the years, including James Ussher (4004 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Gerhard Hasel (4178 BC), and Isaac Newton (~4000 BC), and most creationists of today accept an age within a few centuries of 6000 years ago. If you want you can have a look at a creationist's site: http://creation.com...Radiometric dating is innacurate? Apart from an obvious creationist's attack on radiometric dating, what valid sources do you have for that? And what sources do you have for your bible's theories? Historian's writing? Books? Well in that case; according to the Discworld series there is a flat disc world (as the name suggests) being held on the shoulders of four elephants which are standing on a giant turtle. And according to Harry Potter... well I think you see my point.But, back to radiometric dating. Radiometric dating has been around since 1907 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Do you honestly think that scientists have been using Radiometric dating for over a century while it apparently being inaccurate? Of course not. Furthermore, one of the first radiometric dating methods, Uranium-Lead dating, is one of the oldest and most refined methods. It has an innacuracy rating of only 0.1-1%. To somehow be as innacurate as the gap between 6000 and 4.5 billion years you would need an innacuracy rate of 99.99913%, just a hairs width of 0.1-1%.Actually, it does not assume that the earth never changes, scientists find rocks that are extremely old; for example Zircon crystals (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Or the uranium-lead dating process which uses the half life of uranium; thanks to which we can accurately (within 0.1-1%) calculate the age of the earth (simply look up uranium-lead dating).You then state that because there are accounts for creationism, then it is credible. Well there are countless texts for countless different religions. On what basis are they not credible? Why are they any more credible than the texts you are using? Surely they can't all be credible religions because they have a bunch of text backing them up? Just because several people say something doesn't at all make it true.Your holocaust argument is to be blunt, simply stupid. There is photographical and film evidence of the holocaust, whereas there is beyond a lack of evidence for Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, Jesus, the creation of the earth, the flood ect. Furthermore, I don't see the point in repeating that I've used the example of christianity. As not only have I explained why I used it, but also gave an argument that debunks any kind of creationism; the boeing 747 gambit turned around. You seem to be resorting to repeating the same things you said in your last argument, and being insulting by insinuating that I've not done any research. I have not been insulting and have had a reasonable conduct for the entirety of the debate, I suggest you try and do the same. "I've given actual evidence that supports Jesus Christ". Oh really? Where is it? I'm guessing you are referring to your argument about texts and historians confirming his miracles. This argument is so over-used I wonder why you're the one saying I've done no research. Evolution is not in any sense a source of life, again; why are you saying I've not done my research? Evolution takes off once the first life takes place; once the chemical reaction producing the first self-replicating molecule takes place.You also misunderstand what I said. I said "I am quite content with saying that I don't know". I've never said that the existence of a god is impossible. I've said that it is very improbable.As for your last statement, I'm unfortunately going to have to resort to being a bit insulting. Your statement about scientific theories for the origin of the universe probably stems from complete ignorance. Scientists do not know the origin of the universe and are working towards it. The arrogance lies with he who says he does know and presents no tangible evidence to the table. The creation theory is simply unhelpful and has no point in a classroom as a silly and often harmful theory.