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

Alright let's begin posting some holes. My opponent states that the age of the earth in the bible is absolute, but gives no actual quote to prove this. Next, as far as radiometric dating goes, it's inaccurate. If my opponent did his research, he would know this. http://www.cs.unc.edu... methods in general are inaccurate (copy and past all of that into the url, spaces included) To sum up this argument, radiometric and other geological dating assume the Earth never changes in any sort of way. Any RATIONAL person should be able to identify this as ridiculous. Now let's go onto the whole "creationism has no basis". My opponent sites the bible as just a book with no actual basis. I have two responses to this. 1. Many non-biblical sources, some of which we use for many other historical accounts recant biblical events. http://christianity.stackexchange.com... From this you can read about many non-biblical historians who we rely on for much other information performing miracles or "sorcery" as some sources describe it. My opponent claims he is not spoon-fed information, and yet he denounces sources who we rely on to describe other aspects of history. Again, his arrogance is just shocking. I can't believe he could actually just lump all religion together and say "they have no evidence" when things like this exist. My second argument is that believing things don't have evidence does not make them false. I Take the holocaust for example. http://www.nbcnews.com... According tot his study, approximately one third of adults who are aware of the holocaust don't believe it happened. Now here's where you get to see the true side of my opponent. He'll say "Anyone who doesn't believe the holocaust is an idiot because there's evidence of it". Then he'll say that my sources of Christ performing miracles are invalid for no apparent reason, and won't even question what other historical events he shouldn't believe based on his lack of belief in those sources. That's just how anti-creationist logic works. They state that there's no evidence for any sort of creationism (and usually the only religion they've even studied - no mater how clearly uninformed they are, as we've seen in this debate - is Christianity. I guarantee you my opponent has done little to no research on any religions, and only rejects them because of this societal stigma where we only accept what people tell us are fact and we can't believe what those people say are fiction. I've given ACTUAL evidence that supports Jesus Christ performing miracles, whereas my opponent has even admitted that evolution cannot be cited as a source for life. And he's also admitted that we have no definitive idea what created the Universe - again, his rejection of creationism only stems from his inability to accept things which seem impossible in his eyes - an arrogance which I suppose is understandable, but should not be accepted nonetheless. With that, I believe you can see creationism should be taught in schools - not because it is necessarily accurate, but because students have a right to be informed about whatever they might choose to believe. Many theories about the origin of the universe have literally NO evidence, and yet atheists choose to believe them because they're "scientific" theories. And I respect their right to study and believe those theories. I only ask that the voters allow students those rights as well.