Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution

"Evolution is not as established or concrete as '1+1=2' and although there is a vast amount of evidence supporting it, evolution is just credible as creationism." The analogy was just to show the difference between teaching something that is true, versus teaching something that is true alongside with something false. Even though evolution is not as concrete as "1+1=2", it was still a valid analogy in context. Regardless, you say that creationism is just as credible, but this would mean that there is just as much evidence to support Creationism, as Evolution. However, this has not been supported (my opponent has the burden of proof in the debate to establish the resolution). The reason creationism is false is that it contradicts evolution (YEC states that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that common descent is false), however the evidence of common descent is high due to the discovery of chromosome #2 in humans [http://en.wikipedia.org...(human)], plus we know the Earth is billions of years old [http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...]. Creationism's predictions have been chewed up. "Most of evolution is but a theory as to how the universe came to be when most of it's evidence comes from Carbon-14 dating; it is it not a precise method of calculations due to it's limitations." There are so many things wrong with the above I do not even know where to begin. First of all, Evolution is not a theory as to how the universe came to be. The theory on how the universe came to be is called The Big Bang Theory [http://science.nasa.gov...]. Evolution is the theory on how life changes over time [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Also, most of the evidence of evolution pertains to the fossil record and DNA; not Carbon-14 dating. Carbon-14 dating isn't the only method used to the determine the age of the Earth due to its limitations, this is why radiometric dating is used as well [http://www.talkorigins.org...]. Additionally, for something to be called a Theory in science, it has to be backed up by a lot of evidence. There is no evidence to support Creationism, and evidence against it. "'Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years." (http://www.answersingenesis.org......). With such claims as to the Pre-historic era and the Jurassic period, which are dated to be millions of years ago, how are scientists emanating these allegations as to how the world began and has been going about this whole time? Therefore evolution in fact is not at you say "1+1=2". You quoted that " (only 0.15% of scientists accept creationism) and through your citation, it revealed that these "scientists" are but engineers and computer scientists. "However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.).' Talkorigins.org shut the above argument down already: "Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294). In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990)." [http://www.talkorigins.org...] "At the end of the day creationism is but a theory and a belief pertaining to its evidences found just as much as evolution, yet laws like the separation of church and state stigmatize this topic due to its "paradoxical" complex that leads people to believe that all religion is absurd in science." Creationism is not a scientific theory [http://www.patheos.com...]. In order to be a Theory in science, there has to have a lot of evidence to support it, and it is has to have backing by the scientific community. As I stated, we have evidence that Creationism is false, and Evolution is true, plus less than 0.15% of scientists accept Creationism. Imagine if we taught things to our students that around 0.15% of the experts believed alongside the things that have consensus. This would mean we would have to say Holocaust denial is just as credible as the "theory" that the Holocaust happened. This would cause educational mayhem. No. Teaching Creationism to children is child abuse, and should not be tolerated. I don't want to live in a society where we teach our children things that are false, and have no good evidence to support them. "Creationists do not want to replace evolution with creationism in schools, 'Not all creationists argue against scientific evidence. Some simply prefer to believe that God had a part in it rather than not knowing. They don"t belittle scientific theory or try to argue against it, they simply want to believe that the large unknown force that caused all life, as we know it was a deity of some kind." It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you have hard evidence for, and there is none for Creationism. Thus, it shouldn't be taught in schools. Otherwise, we would be teaching any wacky theory people come up with, and confusing the heck out of our children, instead of giving them a proper education based on evidence and facts. http://www.youtube.com...