Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Wow, you really are an example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Maybe religion is right after all, keeping you all stupid.Whether something is real or not makes no material differenceTo which I replied, that you think whether something is real makes no material difference is a failure of the educational system. Because it is the only thing that matters in fact. What is real.Material specifically means, not that I believe you didn't first look it up grasping at stings to find a way you may, just may have been right, it means concerned with "worldly" things exactly, though we think of it as stuff - and had you meant what now you say you mean you would have made it more clear to support your argument.blah, anyway I could spend all day on the nuances of your faulty argument. It means concerned with worldly things. Seeking truth is a worldly thing. In fact, we as a species would be extinct if we were not occupied with seeking truth, a worldly thing. We would have believed ourselves into an evolutionary dead end via crusade or suicide bomber long ago had it not been for those concerned with things of the world, and how people live in the world and not some magic daddy in the sky.It is nonsensical to simply speak of a condition making or not making a material difference, period; you can only speak of a condition making or not making a material difference in a particular matter / to a particular end / etc.No, I never spoke of a condition making or not making material difference. I spoke of facts. Facts say evolution exists. Fossils are facts. Lack of fossils are facts. Neither the lack of or the presence of fossils hints at creationism. They both prove beyond reasonable doubt evolution. You have not material, spiritual, or made up evidence to the contrary.If you want to speak of "condition" making material difference, I will be happy to. You will find your facade of understanding collapsing quickly though because your entire statement is contradicting hidden in quasi-academia. Condition has no bearing on material when taken in a literal sense. ie, there is specific disease that causes people to see floating human head everywhere. Rare but documented and true. They really see human heads floating and it freaks them out until they understand it. Now, it is a condition, their condition says there are human heads floating around them. It however makes no material difference. Human heads do not randomly float around people - regardless of their condition.You contradict yourself - granted in an academic fashion, but a contradiction none the less.You had thought that it was possible to quote my claim, shed it of the implicit but necessary restriction, and still make a meaningful comment on it :/I did. It was meaningful. Creationism is lacking. Your argument is not creationism here, you're arguing for yourself not your standpoint and you won't find me easily distracted. One can argue whether they really exist even as their argument proves they do. I will not run into a rabbit hole of misdirected argument. I am arguing Creationism is incorrect, not "how well you argue." Argue as well as you like. A child will win a debate eventually if they are right.Whether or not something is real does not make a material difference to everything. It always makes at least one difference, of course - the difference between being real or not. But not all differences are material to the argument.When the argument is "only what has scientific backing should be taught," and not "whatever silly ass thing random idiots happen to believe," it makes all, literally 100% of the difference. That not all differences are material to the argument makes no difference. What matters is that in this case we have a measurable and consistent basis for deciding what is taught. Creationism meets no criteria. The number of people who believe it, is in fact since you brought it up, ironically immaterial.(1) That there are differences between the evolution vs creation debate and the analogies you cited which make your analogies inappropriate (i.e. material differences!)Now you're just ignoring stuff. There is evidence of evolution. Creationism only has stories.(2) That it is unreasonable for teachers to have to pretend that a theory believed by 40% of the US population does not existThey don't have to pretend anything. In fact talk about how dumb the kid's parents are, I don't care. The fact is, creationism is a fairytale, and evolution is just as much fact as gravity.(3) That, for a theory which children will inevitably be exposed to, it is better that this theory be first taught to them by a rational, knowledgeable teacher, than by parents or religious educators who may be less rationalThey're exposed to Santa. Should it be taught as fact?Also, you have not answered my question: In what ways have I used quasi-logic or easily disproven logic? You made the accusation; please either provide evidence in support of it, or else withdraw it.Quasi-logic means you use instruments of logic while ignoring rules of logic. Which you have done. Your logic is disproven all of because, evolution has been proven to a greater extent than who killed Nicole Kidman and the earth is round... literally there is more proof of evolution than the shape of the earth. And since we're speaking philosophically, it has been disproven because by the measure by which we decide what we do and do not teach children in school creationism falls short. If it mattered what the individual believed, as pointed out, we'd teach about Santa. More than 40% of US kids I assure believe in Santa. We do not teach that because we know it is false.So why should we hold Creationism to a different standard? You're asking that Creationism and Creationism alone be held to an entirely new standard. This is a disproof of your argument.I could make your entire exact same argument for anything. I could demand it be taught taught Iraq had WMD's because 40% think it is true. I could demand it is taught the tides are a mystery, because 40% don't know it's the moon's gravity. I could say post-graduates shouldn't be allowed to study String Theory because less than 40% know what it is.Your argument is silly. It has been proven such thoroughly. I expect a withdrawal... drunk as I am. This would have been way faster sober.