The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Should Creationism Be Taught In Public School Science Classes?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 70362
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




I'd like to challenge Kylar to a debate over whether creationism should be taught in public school science classrooms. I will be taking the con side of this issue

Creationism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially asthey now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Rounds 3-5: Rebuttals


I accept!
Thank you for the challenge my friend, and I can't wait to debate this with you :).
Good luck, this should be a fun, yet civil debate for both of us :).
Debate Round No. 1


The argument for Intelligent Design and other creationist “sciences” have no empirical evidence to back it up. The hypothesis of intelligent design is formally called biogenesis in the scientific community, biogenesis meaning all life comes from other life which simply is not true as that starts an infinite regression that can never be stopped. The accepted, tested, and evident theory is abiogenesis which states that all life at one time came from non-living matter such as chemicals in the primordial ooze which would combine to make the first strands of RNA and DNA. Keep in mind that evolution and abiogenesis are completely different things and describe extremely different concepts and processes. Biogenesis goes completely against what we know within science and has nothing to back it up save for things such as the Bible which are unreliable sources due to their historical and scientific inaccuracy and the contradictions within their own texts. Sue Gamble from the Kitzmiller v. Dover case opposed ID stating, “Science does not investigate the supernatural. Once you have supernatural explanations you no longer have science.” (Gamble qtd. in Adams). Essentially she’s backing up the claim that supernatural explanations for things are neither scientific nor logical and should not be taught alongside actual tested theories in our science classrooms.


Adams, William Lee. "The Classroom: Other Schools of Thought; The Teaching of Evolution Continues to Polarize Communities." Newsweek 28 Nov. 2005: 57. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 17 Dec. 2014. <;.

Mooney, Chris. "Trial and Error - Darwin's Foes Can't Evolve." New Republic 17 Oct. 2005: 18. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 17 Dec. 2014. <;.

I actually didn't have much time to actually debate this and so this argument is actually taken from a school paper I wrote on the subject a short time ago. In the coming rounds I'll post more arguments as I have more time.



I thank you for this debate first of all and good luck my friend :). My opening arguments are these:

"In the beginning" God created, i.e., called into being, all things out of nothing. This creative act on the part of God was absolutely free, and for infinitely wise reasons. The cause of all things exists only in the will of God. The work of creation is attributed (1) to the Godhead ( Genesis 1:1 Genesis 1:26 ); (2) to the Father ( 1 Corinthians 8:6 ); (3) to the Son ( John 1:3 ; Colossians 1:16 Colossians 1:17 ); (4) to the Holy Spirit ( Genesis 1:2 ; Job 26:13 ; Psalms 104:30 ). The fact that he is the Creator distinguishes Jehovah as the true God ( Isaiah 37:16 ; Isaiah 40:12 Isaiah 40:13 ; 54:5 ; Psalms 96:5 ; Jeremiah 10:11 Jeremiah 10:12 ). The one great end in the work of creation is the manifestation of the glory of the Creator ( Colossians 1:16 ; Revelation 4:11 ; Romans 11:36 ). God's works, equally with God's word, are a revelation from him; and between the teachings of the one and those of the other, when rightly understood, there can be no contradiction.

Traditions of the creation, disfigured by corruptions, are found among the records of ancient Eastern nations. (See ACCAD .) A peculiar interest belongs to the traditions of the Accadians, the primitive inhabitants of the plains of Lower Mesopotamia. These within the last few years have been brought to light in the tablets and cylinders which have been rescued from the long-buried palaces and temples of Assyria. They bear a remarkable resemblance to the record of Genesis.

See, creation is even described by ancient cultures outside of Geneis, and public schools should aknowledege this and teach it. I will unpack more in Round 3.
Thank you again for this debate, and I can't wait for your arguments :), my friend.

Debate Round No. 2


A Shaky Floor To Stand Upon
Well right off the bat we have some problems. Yes, the Bible says that God created all things out of nothing but this does not distinguish God as the creator. While I assume that your speaking of the Christian God seeing as you are yourself a Christian I can only assume you believe in his omnipotency, omnisciency, omnibenevolence, and omnipresense. Saying that there can be no contradiction is fallacious and unfounded but we can attribute that from the writer of the source this is copy-pasted from. There is a contradiction within the Bible about the creation myth. Genesis 1 and 2 tell different creation stories in different orders. This creates a contradiction because both of them cannot be true.

In this first story humans were created after the other animals

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:25-27 "

However in this second story man was created first.
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:18-19"

So the statement that there can be no contradiction is fallacious.

Just Because A Lot of People Think It Doesn't Make It True

While there are a ton of creation myths throughout the ancient civilizatrions this really only refutes your argument. Now while these tablets (citation please) that were found may bear remarkable resemblence to Genesis the Assyrians were around from about 1900 BCE to about 612 BCE. This would make the tablets older than the stories told in Genesis so logically wouldn't the Genesis stories be derivitive of them and not the other way around? Now while I have conceded that a lot of ancient cultures believed in creation myths this certainly doesn't make them true. Most ancient cultures worshiped the sun as some sort of god or thought gods were the aspect of the sun. Should we then believe that the sun IS a god just because many ancient cultures believe it. While public school AKNOWLEDGE that many ancient cultures believe it they do not teach it because these creation myths are unfounded in any sort of empirical evidence while there are other more scientific expanations that are. And that's really what we should be teaching kids in classrooms, that which is founded in evidence not that which is only founded in belief.



First of all, good arguments my friend and thank you for this debate :), it has been a good one so far.
Secondly, I refute you with the following arguments from this article on why creationism should be taught in public schools :)

5 Crucial Reasons to Teach Creationism in Public Schools

Should creationism be taught alongside evolution? Is it fair to give students only one theory to believe? Is it legal to do so in the public schools?

There are No Criticisms of Evolution

There are no criticisms of the theory of evolution in any of the textbooks or course materials, despite the fact that evolution cannot be stated as a scientific law and remains, for well over a century, a theory.

Evolution is a historically based theory based upon assumptions from what took place millions of years ago. What are missing are the gaps of transitional fossils that establish one specie evolving into another, new specie. When there is yet another claim that a missing link has been found, the question arises, where is the chain in the first place? How can we claim to have found a missing link while there isn’t even a chain? Maybe you’ve seen the images or pictures of man evolving from apes in textbooks. What are missing are transitional fossils between the ape and man so educators have to depend upon images and drawings to try and establish a connection. Why? It’s because there are no fossils that they can take pictures of to display as proof. Scientists have at their disposal, hundreds of millions of fossils and fossil samples, yet not one set of transitional fossils revealing specie evolving into another has ever been found. Despite untold millions of categorized fossils their remains no set that establish a new life form evolving from another. This fact was not lost by Darwin who said that he was troubled by the lack of fossil evidence showing that new species arose from previous ones.

Critical Thinking Skills

It seems that public schools value critical thinking skills yet they are cramming an unproven theory down the student’s throats and so it appears that they won’t even consider other possibilities. These educators are like dictators who essentially spout “It’s my way or the highway.”

I believe that students should have the option of stating their own beliefs and base them upon what findings they gain in their education. Former President George Bush once said that “Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought [and] people ought to be exposed to different ideas.”

Give Parents What They Want

A 1991 Gallop Poll (Nov 28th, 1991), which was the last time a comprehensive polling results on a national scale was undertaken, indicated that 47% of Americans believe in creation over evolution and 40% believe that God used evolution as a process of creating life. A few had no opinion and so that left only 9% of Americans who believe that God was not involved and that only naturalistic means were the cause of the origin of life. Since almost 9 out of every 10 Americans believe that God was involved in creation and just under half of those believed that the origin of life was not naturalistically caused, why do almost 100% of college professors and staff teach that evolution is the only option possible? These professors and the colleges seem to be in the minority, yet they do not tolerate differences of opinion or belief, even though the theory of evolution has never been comprehensively established as a fact. Why not let people choose what they want their children to learn? Don’t these professors and colleges work for the students who pay their salaries or the parents who educate their children? Why is there no tolerance for those who differ in opinions and hold to a different belief than an unproven, untested theory? Good question. Children should be taught that evolution is only a theory and to see that a theory is not the same as a scientific law like Newton’s Three Laws of Motion.

Freedom of Speech

I believe that students should have the option of stating their own beliefs and base them upon what findings they gain in their education. Former President George Bush once said that “Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought [and] people ought to be exposed to different ideas.” Academic freedom is what brought the theory of evolution to the classrooms in the first place and so what is wrong with the idea of allowing others to provide their views on how life came into being and if it did evolve or didn’t evolve. Shouldn’t we let them freely express what they believe and provide the reasons for why they believe what they do believe? Good science has always allowed for controversy in the classroom and so educators should allow for rational scientific discussion and criticisms of the theory of evolution. By the way, educators should not state that evidence for Darwinian evolution is overwhelming and indisputable.

Evolution is Bad Science

Mankind used to believe that the earth was flat and that if a ship sailed too far it would end up falling off the edge of the earth. That is because we believed only with our eyes. The theory of evolution is much like this in that a theory or belief is taught as scientific fact because of what they perceive even though nothing could be further from the truth. Teaching evolution as fact is just plain bad science. Evolution is closer to a philosophy than it is a science. One example is that mutations are a good thing. I heard about a dairy farmer who had a dairy cow that gave birth to a calf with two heads. That is a mutation. The problem was that the calf died since it was sending different signals to its digestive system and survived for only a few days. If you had asked the dairy farmer if that mutation was an advantage, he would have said no because the calf died. I have never seen or heard of a mutation where it helped the specie propagate or survive and become a better organism. If you asked biologists if mutations are a good thing, they might give you a funny look because mutations are basically a change that takes place in the nucleotide sequence within the genome of an organism. These mutations are the result of DNA or DNA genomes that were unrepaired and will lead to errors in the replication process of additional cells. Even so, evolutionists claim that mutations are how life forms eventually evolve into a new life form. Evolution requires positive mutations, which are so rare that scientists have problems finding them in nature. What they do find are mutations that are extremely harmful and sometimes fatal to the organism. In order for evolution to work it needs an increase in information by means of positive mutations. The only problem is they can’t find where this occurs by natural means.


Debate Round No. 3


There Are Criticisms of Evolution
While not in the textbook evolution and science in general relies on criticism. It's what peer reviewing is and it's what makes things credible.

Evolution is not historically based, your getting that confused with creationism. Evolution is scientifically based and has been rigorously tested, observed, peer reviewed, and revised. The "missing fossils" in the fossil record doesn't actually discredit evolution. Also transitional fossils? What? Species don't just magically change in the next generation, that's not how evolution works and that's not how speciation works. If you were to take one bloodline of a certain type of rabbit and take every single member of that bloodline and trace it back a million years and place each one right next to each other we could do a little experiment. Now looking from one generation to the next you wouldn't see any difference whatsoever but take one generation and one 10000 generations away you WOULD see a significant difference.

Theory In a Scientific Sense
Oh dear we've stumbled upon the most frustrating creationist argument in the history of this debate. The dreaded "It's just a theory" argument. This just comes down to a discussion of language. See in todays society whenever we have a crazy idea we say we have a "theory" and creationists take this and run with it calling evolution "just a theory". This can be dismantled two ways, I'll demonstrate both.

Evolution and The THEORY of Evolution are actually two separate things. Sound's odd but it's actually quite simple. Evolution is the natural process in which living things adapt, develop, and speciate over time. The Theory of Evolution is OUR study of the mechanisms that make those natural processes work. The Theory of Evolution is ours, if humans were to disappear entirely the theory would go as well. Evolution on the other hand will continue objectively outside the influences of science forever or untill all life dies out.

The other way to go at this is that The Theory of Evolution is a tad different than your buddy Carl's "theory" about what's going to happen next on Arrow. The Theory of Evolution has been developed over decades with mountains of research, peer reviewed papers, actual scientific findings, and archaeological evidence.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for diversifying the way we teach kids but proposing we teach unfounded religious dogma in SCIENCE classrooms? Fallacious.

Repeating Myself

Well the Gallup poll you cite was taken back in 1991 when a lot less people were actually educated about what evolution is and a lot less evidence was found for it.
Trend: Which of the Following Statements Comes Closest to Your Views on the Origin and Development of Human Beings?

The most recent Gallop poll on the same subject was done in May of 2014 and 42% believe in creation while 19% believe in evolution with god having no part in the process and 31% believe he guided it. Again this is irrelevant. Just because people believe it does not mean that it's true. What makes something true is evidence of which creationism has none. Also College Professors teach that it is the only PLAUSIBLE answer which is completely true.

"Why not let people choose what they want their children to learn?" They do, it's called indoctrination. You could always also just enroll your kids in a religious private school but that's besides the point. Unproven? Untested? Well let's debunk that right now...again.

The Xavier team did an experiment on a type of bacteria. Now these bacteria have flagellas which I'm fairly certain everyone knows what those are so I see no need to explain it further. These bacterica however also use something called surfactant to move around easier, think of it like some slippery film. They also use something called biofilm however to help stay in place for good food sources ect. Now this team put some of these bacteria in a dish and let them grow. You can actually see the surfactant highways that the bacteria form to get to the food. They then took some of that generation and put in in another dish and let it grow again. Now this time the surfactant highways were slightly different. They repeated this process over and over again untill the way the bacertia moved was completely different. They now formed an even coat of surfactant over the entire dish to help move around blazingly fast, they also grew 2 extra flagellum. This is important because we see a genetic change in throughout generations in order to advance their species. This is the verty essence of what evolution is! So enough with that untested nonsense.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms510492f1.jpg

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms510492f2.jpg

Freedom To Refute Your Creationism
Kids are allowed to express their ideas on how life may not have evolved. And teachers and other students are allowed to refute those arguments and show how they are so wrong. Also just because educators don't outright state it's indisputable doesn't mean it's not indisputable.

This last paragraph is actually just unfounded, uncited nonsense. You can pretty much refute all this with the bacteria examples I provided above;


Thank you once more my fine friend for a great debate thus far, I have enjoyed it greatly, and learned a lot :). Time to refute.
0 Reasons Creationism Should Be Taught in School


Creationism—in a nutshell—is the belief that God or some form of higher power had a hand in the creation of mankind and the universe. There has been furious debate about whether or not this way of thinking should be taught in schools, here are ten arguments in favor of it being taught in schools.




Reason: People want it

Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, the wants and needs of the many out weigh the wants and needs of the few and according to a pollof several thousand Americans, twenty percent believed that only evolution should be taught in schools, and sixteen percent believed that only creationism should be taught. The remainder supported the notion of teaching both: evolution in the science class, and creation in a philosophy class. Either way you look at it, that’s a decent chunk of people asking for the same thing. You don’t even need that many people to agree on something to elect the president.




Reason: It’s a legitimate belief system

Though evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists, a great deal of non-scientists still believe in some of the teaching of creationism. For example, a Gallup poll in 2010 revealed that four in ten Americans believed in strict Creationism, whereas in the UK that number sits at closer to two in ten. Whether or not you believe it isn’t the point, the point is that this is a belief held by a significant number of people—people who, like you and me—pay taxes for their children’s education.


Poor Education


Reason: Religious studies are painfully lacking

Religious studies are almost non-existent in the Western world in the public school system. Some would say this is a good thing, as it separates the church and the state, but is it really a bad thing to teach children how to better understand their fellow man? According to statistics, there are well over a dozen separate belief systems in the US alone. It isn’t a bad thing to teach children about the various aspects of these difference faiths in a non-biased way. Even Darwin himself expressed the notion that ignorance is more dangerous than knowing nothing.




Reason: It’s important for children to know all ways of thinking

It’s easy to sit back and say that we should only teach children evolution because we perceive that as the right way, however, school isn’t just about maths, science, English and history. There’s a side of education usually referred to as the hidden curriculum. This is the side effect of regular school life and is how most children pick up social norms, beliefs and basically the things that will mold them as a person. Creationism and other such belief systems inspire debate and encourage children to articulate thoughts that help them develop skills that simply cannot be gained through a strictly academic education.


Freedom of Speech


Reason: Freedom of speech and expression works both ways

Arguing that creationism is forcing religion on children is akin to saying a history class on World War II is forcing fascism on children. Living in a society that allows people to express their views openly without fear of hostility as long as they do it nicely means that we will often have to hear things we disagree with. It’s important for children to know and understand these views. Painting every issue as black and white, right and wrong gives them an unrealistic view of a world. The same thing that gives you the right to not believe in religion gives other people the same right to practice it.




Reason: It doesn’t necessarily disagree with science

One commonly-held view of creationists is that they are a bunch of religious zealots feverishly ignoring an ever increasing amount of evidence contrary to their beliefs. However, although those people exist, there also exists a sizable number of people who believe the two trains of thought can co-exist.

Old Earth creationists don’t necessarily disagree with mainstream science, in fact they openly embrace it, they simply believe that God, or some other higher power played a part in the events that led to our creation. Even thepope says that faith and evolution can co-exist. And I’m pretty sure that thepriest who come up with the idea of the big bang would have agreed with him.



Creation Museum 10

Reason: Creationism is misrepresented

As mentioned above, 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.

However, most creationists are painted as lunatics and with atheism on the rise in the younger generation, people who simply wish to have faith in a higher power are being constantly misrepresented. With impartial education about the key facts, that would no longer be the case.




Reason: It’s an important part of history

Like it or not, creationism dominated human belief for centuries: even if you don’t believe it now, our ancestors did. Why should we skip over an integral part of human history simply because many don’t agree with it today? If that were true for all things we’d never teach children about World War II or slavery. If you don’t believe in creationism as a belief system, you have to agree that it was one of the fundamental factors of human civilization for hundreds of years. As such, it’s important that children are at least aware of it.




Reason: Children aren’t stupid.

Children’s minds are a wonderful thing. They absorb knowledge far faster than ours and they have an amazing ability to process information on amass scale while young. Though many would criticize children for saying they have a simplistic view of the world, their ability to process information is second to none.

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development states that children will learn the basic concepts of logic and reasoning at around age eight, while their use of primitive reasoning and the much dreaded “why?” phase occurs much younger than that. With that in mind, is it really so bad to indulge that curiosity in an honest way?




Reason: It might be true.

Not just creationism, but all the alternatives. Around 200 years ago a man named Ignaz Semmelweis warned doctors that tiny creatures they couldn’t see were killing their patients because they wouldn’t wash their hands. He was belittled, beaten and died in abject poverty. Several years later he was proven right about everything he’d claimed. If you don’t believe in a deity, an omniscient force that controls the universe, is it really acceptable to claim that the entire notion is impossible?


Debate Round No. 4


New Arguments
Keep in mind that pro says it's time to refute yet has done no refutations of any argument I have made thus far and has instead copy pasted yet another article bringing up more very unfounded points some of which I have already refuted in earlier rounds; however I will still refute his arguments point by point.

Argument 1 Demand
Reguardless of your personal feelings on the matter, the wants and needs of the many are in fact outweighed by what is evident and factual. While this poll is factually acruate it is still uncited so I could easily write it off but I won't. The problem with the "demand" argument is that we actually do teach ABOUT creation myths in history classes however we don't teach them as fact as you would like them too because these myths are not evident.

Argument 2 Legitimacy
You really refute your own argument here. While it is a legitimate BELIEF system (emphasis on belief) evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists, trained professionals who devote their lives to the research of the universe and the search for evidence of it's many workings. Evolution is one of said workings that we have mountains of evidence for and just because 40% of Americans don't believe it that doesn't damage it's credibility in the slightest. Also yet again, just because a lot of people, the people who pay taxes, want it in schools does not mean that it should be taught as fact because of the previous point of IT IS NOT EVIDENT.

Argument 3 Poor Education
Again you kinda refute your own argument again. It's because of the separation of church and state. I'm not sure how RELIGIOUS studies would help people "better understand their fellow man" better than say psychology, neurology, and anatomy classes but if you mean better understand their cultures well then this leads into my next point. We DO teach kids a ton of different faiths in an unbiased format. It's called world history class. Of course most people who propose teaching creationism in schools don't propose this unbiased teaching they propose teaching of their religion as fact but I must commend you on taking the higher road here.

Argument 4 Diversity
I mean yeah creationism sparks debate but that's only because there are so many rediculous flaws in it. Again we are talking about teaching it in public school science classrooms as per the topic of the debate. Sure it may help kids learn to debate better but does that really mean it should be taught as fact?

Argument 5 Freedom of Speech
The problem with the analogy here is that in WW2 studies we don't teach people that facism is the one and only answer. That's what ID proponents want to do in science classes so the analogy doesn't hold up. Um "black and white" is kind of the way science works. Either it's right or it's wrong. This argument doesn't really make sense as noone said kid's couldn't pray in schools however this is copy pasted so I'm assuming the guy who actually wrote this thought they couldn't maybe?

Argument 6 Science
This argument just say's that creation and science don't clash which they do. Creation says man was created in it's current form as with every other lifeform, evolution says they evolved from a single common ancestor. If that's not clashing I don't know what is.

Argument 7 Misrepresentation
This entire paragraph is a god of the gaps argument. Listen it's ok to not know, if you take everything that we don't know and say "god done it" then noone will ever learn anything. Embrace the unknown and strive to make it known, don't just give up and fill it with god.

Argument 8 History
Well umm we do teach them history classes where it belongs. You seem to forget that the topic of this debate is specifically SCIENCE classes. This is why I have a problem with copy paste arguments. So often they go off topic since they were written for the original topic to begin with! Just type your own stuff! It's not THAT hard!

Argument 9 Stupidity
This argument doesn't even make sense in the context of this debate. Skip.

Argument 10 Veracity
Well I mean yea we teach the alternatives but again we teach them as myths in history classes where we can examine WHY people believe this factoring in culture, time period, ect. Half of your arguments go off topic as we are talking about SCIENCE classes. In science class we don't teach every little alternative simply because there isn't enough time. We teach what is most evident and factual.

So far pro has done absolutely nothing to refute my arguments and instead has relied upon some very faulty copy-paste arguments which stray very far from the topic. I anticipate the final round.



Good arguments, thank you for this debate my friend :). It has been a good one, and I am not the most expierienced, which I am sorry. i will learn in the future much more on how to do a better debate.
Time to close this out:
In summary, I say let creationism be taught in public school classes. Let people see the opposite side, and let them formulate their beliefs after hearing both creation and evolution.
Thank you again for this debate and we will do another soon :)
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Toxifrost 1 year ago
I thought we talked about the copy paste man?
Posted by Toxifrost 1 year ago
Well Yoshi there are religious study class but they don't teach creationism and they don't teach one specific religion. they go over a ton of different religions and the beliefs of each one. What's funny is that in high school I took such a class and not a single religious person actually signed up for the class. It was just me and a bunch of atheist kids learning about other religions. Hindu was my favorite.
Posted by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
Well, at some point I'd like to see the "third option" in this debate - that it would not be taught in science, but in religious study classes.
Unless you're living in, I quote, "'Murica", in which case it's probably a different name to it.
Posted by Toxifrost 1 year ago
Kylar I'd like to politely request that you not just copy paste arguments from other sources. It's very unprofessional and shows almost a lack of effort. If you want to use them as a source and paraphrase and reword them to make them what you think they should be that's fine but I'd like to debate you and your arguments not someone else's.
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 1 year ago
great game.
Posted by Toxifrost 1 year ago
Facist Ill probably post later today. I'm in the middle of a Hitman: Absolution marathon at the moment lol
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 1 year ago
Creationism and science is an oxymoron
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 1 year ago
I can't wait for this one lol
No votes have been placed for this debate.