Creationism and Intelligent design should not be taught in science lessons

First of all here's some examples proving creationism and disproving evolution at the same time." I am interested in this 'finding' and will pursue it further. However, I'm afraid it is not valid for this debate. I believe that there is a lot of ambiguity in the case of the dinosaurs, like how long they lived and what killed them off, but Humans evolved from the mammals that lived before the dinosaurs, through their existence and carried on afterwards. Even if the finding is valid and a human like creature lived around the same time (I very much doubt it was homo sapien) it doesn't interrupt the theory of evolution because dinosaurs are not our ancestors, the mammals are. I'm not saying that the theory that we coexisted is true, (that is another debate all together) but if it is possible, it just shows that the timeline we predicted is inaccurate, not that humans could not have evolved from a common ancestor. "While we have observed micro evolution." You are correct in saying that we have witnessed this type of evolution, so evolution is possible. We have seen it on a small scale because that is the only thing we can observe in such a small time scale. Total evolution to another species can take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to achieve. "Radioactive decay measurements taken of our atmosphere show that our atmosphere is only about 6000 to 10000 years old. It couldn't have supported any kind of life before that time." Radio active decay of what? Carbon 14 dating is not possible in the atmosphere. Argon dating is possible. Please elaborate this point so I have enough information to debate it with the correct knowledge. Also, the atmosphere is younger than the Earth and has evolved greatly. The atmosphere might have not been able to sustain life as we know it now, but other organisms exist that had adapted to a younger atmosphere that would kill all other life these days (EG. Methanogens). "Next I bring up the point that my opponent made that since creationism is only a theory it shouldn't be taught." I did not say that. Creationism is not a theory at all, that was my point. I believe that the theories with the most evidence supporting them should be taught, and even if you take Creationism as a theory, it just doesn't have enough evidence for it, and the evidence against it is staggering. Having a belief and having faith in that belief are different things. You may have a belief like gravity, but the reason for that belief could be due to scientific reasons or faith, for example. You may believe in God because of faith, and I don't believe in God because of scientific evidence. They are both beliefs but only one is a faith. As I said before, 'Faith' is simply a belief with no evidence or other merit of proof. And just because it comes from a dictionary, it doesn't make it the only definition; there are loads of definitions on the Internet and different dictionaries ect, therefore it is very debatable indeed. "As seen in the comments page, evolution is taught on a fairness doctrine in most religious schools. Thus the reverse can be accepted." In the UK, it is taught in religious schools because it is in the national curriculum and they don't have a choice, and it is in the national curriculum because it is the most widely accepted theory in science at the moment. Also, I ask you, where does the idea of creationism come from? The Bible. And where did the bible come from? Men who lived thousands of years ago with extremely little scientific knowledge. There is no basis for Creationism except for that book, which is one of the poorest examples of 'evidence' ever presented in science. Creationism is an extremely old idea from the era where the earth was flat ( Daniel 4:7-8 ). So why believe in creationism and not the fact that the Earth is flat? Evolution comes from scientific observation of the real world. Still, I can see no true evidence FOR creationism. Evolution can be seen everywhere. Moths can evolve their colour to match their habitat. We can see bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance extremely quickly in hospitals. As for macro evolution, here is an example: "In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. Coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species. Many traits were observed changing over time. Creationists dismissed these changes as micro-evolution. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability." This E coli has evolved into a species that can grow on citrate. Also, how can you explain the DNA evidence and the relation of different animals' DNA? Chimpanzees and Humans share around 98% of DNA suggesting a common ancestor as Evolution predicted. Homologous features also pose a problem for Creationism. Why is it that some animals have features of organisms that are suggested to be their ancestors. (EG. Digit bones in hooves of animals and claw bones in bird's wings.)