Creationism should be banned from science classes

My opponent is the reason why the purge of creationist pseudo-science from the science class is utterly non-negotiable. My opponent's argument switches from one moment of age-old philosophical assertions to another moment of outdated fringe pseudo-science. I will respond coherently to both my opponent's massive misconceptions about evolution and their slap-dash attempt in finding unscrupulous creationist garbage to create some kind of patchwork ID argument. But before I do that I want to point out that I left my opponent some questions too. To be honest, I am frankly sick and tired of hearing, Every single time an evolution vs creationism debate is held, All that happens is that the creationist tries to simply poke holes in evolution. Every single time its the evolutionist who is expected to "defend" the "theory". This is not about evolution. It's about the lie of creationism. My opponent has tried as hard as they can to make this all about evolution and hide the unbelievable stupidity of creationism. I'm not accepting that. If they want to attack evolution then I will attack creationism. Where is a single scientific study which shows evidence for young-earth creationism? Where is the evidence that the earth is less than 8000 years old? Where in genesis are dinosaurs mentioned? Why do we find trees which are older than you think the earth is? I hope that my opponent doesn't just ignore this like previously. Then 1st ridiculous misconception that my opponent has is that they claim that "everything can't have been created by chance" Evolution says nothing of the kind. Natural selection is literally the opposite of chance. Gene mutations are random but the filter of genetic variation is literally the opposite. The mistake made by people who don't understand evolution is that they think that if anything appears to have speciated then it needs intelligence. NO it does not. Natural selection speciates organisms without intelligence because it's NATURAL intelligence. Then my opponent argued that even if we could accept that genes evolve where did they come from? Once again, It evolved; DNA evolved from RNA; natural processes can form DNA. All your doing is making blind and stupid assertions which can be explained by science; you choose to ignore those explanations because the problem seems to complicated to be explained naturally. It's very telling when my opponent has to dig around the web so much to find anything to support their crazy position that they pull out a 48 year old study from a highly controversial astronomer (not biologist). Firstly, The origin of life is not the same as evolution. Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. It merely states that organisms have genetic changes over time. To quote the New Scientist: "The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747, " astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe told a court in Arkansas in 1981, According a report in New Scientist (21 January 1982, P 140). His colleague Fred Hoyle made the tornado version of this claim famous " proving that even very clever people can utterly misunderstand evolution. A somewhat better analogy would be starting with a million junkyards, Painstakingly testing the wreckage left in each one after the tornado to find the most flight worthy, Making a million exact copies of that junkyard, Unleashing another million tornadoes, Running another series of exhaustive tests, And so on, Until you produce some kind of machine " no matter how crude and un-Boeing-747-like " capable of flying at least a few yards. " As a matter of fact abiogenesis has not been disproved and many scientists believe in it. Science is unsure and is working on it. Just because we don't know that doesn't mean we won't know. But this does not disprove evolution merely adds to the abiogenesis debate. Next it turns out that my opponent is also a conspiracy theorist. Do you honestly believe that 99% of the scientific community has conspired to lie to the public along with the government that evolution is a fact? These discredited scientists have been discredited for a reason - they are wrong. What would the government's incentive to lie to use be anyway? Mike Pence is a known evolution sceptic and the Republican party is filled with creationists. Your claim of deliberate marginalisation of scientists just doesn't stand up. The theory that they have been discredited because their theories have been proven to be nonsense is a much more realistic one. I am amazed that you seriously believe that her finding of soft tissue proves coexistence with dinosaurs. 1 finding? My opponent seems to have no grasp of what is scientific proof. 1 finding is nothing. And you even ignored my original response. I gave you a recent study which explains her findings. It says that the soft-tissue was formed by modern bacterial processes and wasn't actually dinosaur tissue. Furthermore, Considering how many hundreds of ancient cave paintings we find around the world isn't it surprising that we don't see any pictures of dinosaurs anywhere, Despite the fact that you claim we coexisted? To clarify: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, Based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. Have you ever heard of gravitational theory or quantum theory? Since in your weird world of talking snakes and vegetarian dinosaurs, A scientific theory is equivalent to an ordinary theory, Then you should also be a gravity sceptic. (Maybe the government is faking gravity with a giant magnet beneath our feet! ) Homo Erectus has been proven to be a different species, Otherwise it would be called Homo Sapiens. Yes some people may look slightly more like different species but some leopards look like jaguars and some men may look like women or vice versa. That doesn't mean that men and women are the same nor does it mean that leopards are jaguars. Experts in palaeontology study this for a living and they conclude that Homo Erectus as a species is so morphologically different to Homo sapiens the they count as a different species. But that's not all. You then went on to claim that because 19 years ago a scientific magazine said Australopithecus must be removed from the family tree that means Australopithecus is not evidence of a transition fossil. That is a complete lie. Are you copying a pasting this from Answers in Genesis by any chance? Australopithecus was removed from the Homo group of the Hominid family tree. That still makes it a Hominid species and it is still an ancient related species. The Smithsonian published a diagram of the Hominid family tree which shows Australopithecus as an ancient cousin with whom we share a common ancestor. "Australopithecus played a significant part in human evolution, The genus Homo being derived from Australopithecus at some time after three million years ago. In addition, They were the first hominids to possess certain genes, Known as the duplicated SRGAP2, Which increased the length and ability of neurons in the brain. One of the australopith species evolved into the genus Homo in Africa around two million years ago (e. G. Homo habilis), And eventually modern humans. " http://humanorigins. Si. Edu/evidence/human-family-tree The fact is that you have failed to provide any actual evidence other than quotes which hasn't been debunked or revised and that's why scientists remain convinced that Australopithecus is the ancestor of the Homo genus and proof of evolution. I want to see you find a scientific study with empirical evidence which disproves evolution. I am still waiting for you to disprove Homo Habilis, Neanderthals, Ardipithecus, Homo heidelbergensis. . . The list goes on. Maybe because https://quantumpranx. Wordpress. Com/the-struggles-of-darwin/ ran out of content on the other ones? Did you care to watch the Richard Dawkins video on the evolution of Cetaceans? There is some great transition fossil evidence. Your'e right. You certainly can't prove the earth is no more than 8000 years old. But I can prove its 4. 5 billion years old. Yes, I know that Carbon dating is not always perfectly accurate. But that's why scientists don't just use carbon dating. I gave you a long list of lots of dating methods. Please try to disprove them all if you are going to say that. The fact is that creationists can't go beyond Carbon dating. This site explains how I can prove the age of the earth is 4. 5 billion years old: https://geomaps. Wr. Usgs. Gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth. Html Audience, My opponent blows a lot of smoke and hot air but none of what they have provided is scientific evidence. All they have done has attempted to poke holes at evolution and then claimed that that is proof of creationism. Remember, This is a person who believes we walked with dinosaurs. They want people like them to teach that in science classes. Would you want your children to be taught such things as scientifically true. 32doni32nido32 was absolutely right when they said that in the USA we separate church and state. This is the reason why. This is the indoctrination of children. Evolution is a fact not a theory. Science backs it up entirely. Creationism is still nonsense and has been for a while. I agree with asta too. We should be careful not to send contradicting messages to kids. That's why we need to teach about creationism separately to evolution in a religious knowledge class or a bible study class. But we must not teach kids lies and this is what my opponent has provided. Vote for Truth. Vote for Pro. On a side note to my opponent: if you were born in Saudi Arabia what religion would you be?