creationism is best for the science classrooms

"You stated that since creationism teaches people to have a purpose in God that it is better than evolution when it comes to morals. If I am wrong in my interpretation of your third point please correct me." That is not quite what I am saying. I am saying that creationism is the only thing that can give people meaning in life. I wasn't specifically talking about morality but it is true that we wouldn't have any reason to help keep a person alive. People would all end up dead and since that would be the only "purpose" in life, there would be no reason to prolong the inevitable. For instance, it would do any good to keep someone alive since they would die anyway. "As someone who was never taught creationism, I learned it myself later in life, you saying that without a creator there is no purpose in life quite frankly offends me because I am atheist and have no shortage of purpose." No reason to get offended. Without a creator, my life would also be meaningless and we would both be in the same boat. "Space and time at a scale that large give me a poetic feel every time I think about it." That is a neat thought but the beauty of something does not give your life any significance. "All be it a personal purpose but attempting to understand everything about the cosmos is purpose enough for me." Trying to understand something does not give your life significance. It might be something you do but it wouldn't give your life an ultimate purpose since you would end up dead anyway. If humans are only meant to die, it would not matter that we ever existed at all. You may find the cosmos interesting (as you should), but what is the ultimate significance of this? It doesn't give anyone meaning...it makes no difference whether you search the cosmos or not since we would all end up dead. "After reading the bible, listening to atheists analyze the bible, apologists analyze the bible, I've read an annotated dake bible and I still can't agree with anyone that says that the bibles account of nature is correct. You are going to have to be more specific. I don't know what you mean by the "account of nature." Are you referring to God's miracles? Because in that case it would merely be God working with the creation he created. He did create the laws of nature after all. "Adam and Eve probably didn't exist, Moses probably didn't, and Noah probably didn't. The only reason I say 'probably' is because it isn't a good idea to act certain of anything. But I am as certain as I possibly can be. (99% sure)" Well now you are contradicting something you said earlier. You said and I quote "Adam & Eve, the snake, Noah and his arc, etc. are all not real." You claiming that with certainty. But I guess you change your mind now that you can't provide evidence for their nonexistence. I on the other hand could give you evidence that they did exist. Therefore it is more plausible to believe that they did exist. "For all these reasons I just stated I don't buy that creationism fits with any evidence (fossils, uranium dating of earth, DNA) in favor of evolution." I understand this...but are you going to explain why you believe that creationism doesn't fit with any evidence the fossils present? I spend a paragraph explaining why creationism could easily be another explanation for the evidence. Why do you just assert your belief as truth when you haven't even refuted a single point I made on this point in the argument? The reasons you gave did not address the evidence of the fossils at all. You merely said some random and vague thing about nature and then stated (without support) that Adam and Eve plus etc... didn't exist. Can you please try and address why you feel that the evidence of the fossils doesn't support a common designer? "There could be 1,000,000,000 twin earths out there somewhere but are so far apart that there would be a very hard time for any of them to communicate to each other, so there could be life else where which I believe doesn't help your argument." No actually, I don't remember hearing about any evidence that suggested that this is a possibility. My argument has nothing to do with made up claims. The possibility of our universe existing is basically zero. But somehow our universe still exists now and it feels like life has been rigged in our favor. "But that's all just speculation." The odds of our universe existing is not mere speculation. Making up claims about the possibility of twin earths is speculation. "If the total energy content of the universe was 0, which is allowed by the laws of physics, the universe would be a more life permissive universe than it is now." Yes...but that is all based on an assumption that the total energy content of the universe was zero. And it is also based on the assumption that the universe is eternal. William lane Craig states that "this attempt to draw metaphysical implications from the zero net energy hypothesis is a bad joke. It"s like saying that if your debts and your assets exactly cancel each other out, so that your net worth is zero, then there is no cause of your current financial condition." So therefore the assumption about the universes' energy being zero is ridiculous. "I realize you may believed I made an attempt to disprove the existence of God outright. It is impossible." You said that belief in God is a delusion which means that God does not exist. But I am glad to see that you have retracted your bold claims about the existence of Adam, Eve, God, and etc... "The same way you won't be able to disprove Unicorns to me. So still you have made no ground." I have made plenty of ground. But as for the unicorns...are you referring to rhinos that are sometimes called unicorns or are you speaking of the flying ones invented by the Greeks? It really isn't hard to disprove the existence of flying unicorns beyond a reasonable doubt. Thanks again for an interesting round. I will await for your response.