Tolerance and equal opportunity between people, people. Ideas are the products of people, products of people are not equal. It is not inappropriate to dislike Apple's computers, nor inappropriate to like Windows. Certainly if you heard the dumbest idea you have ever heard, it would not be immoral to tear the weak flimsy thing to shreds. To consider an unsupported claim and a scientific theory, the result of many peoples work over years and years of time, as being equal is an insult.

On the topic of anti-christianism (which is kind of impossible considering 85% of the US is Christian), it would not be intolerant to demand punishment for the vandalizing gays (for they vandalized and so they should be punished on the grounds of vandalizing and nothing else), but to state that the way gays are and were created is an unholy abomination that should be considered in no way equal to straight Christians is horribly intolerant. It is essentially punishing them for existing as God made them. Your group tries to act the victim, but you are the perpetrator, it is you who wants their religion taught in schools (science is not a religion, for it requires evidence not faith), it is you who wants gay marriage to be illegal because it disagrees with your religion, it is you persecute the gays because they are sinners according to your religion. You walk in screaming intolerance, and your religion is the source of most intolerance. Hypocritical society, how dare they attempt not to make your religion the state religion, how dare they call you bigots when the people you are persecuting are fighting back.

I am ignorant as to the evidence for the "big bang", therefore it is wrong. Fallacious thought processes. Either the sign of a lack of experience with thought or the lack of skill. Which one is a prerequisite to fanaticism, or will either one do?

If the bible is the word of God, then the bible is correct. If the Bible is correct, then it is the word of God. Conclusion: The bible is correct. This is fallacious garbage. The bible claims to have witnesses. The bible only has witnesses if the bible is correct. So if the bible is correct, then they have witnesses, which prove that the bible is correct. So Aaronv1995, is fallacious thought what you do everyday when presented with a dilemma?

Whether Evolution and the Rapid Expansion of this Universe in the Initial Moments of the Creation of this Universe (Big Bang is a slur used against the theory, and it fails to adequately summarize the theory in anyway) are correct or not is irrelevant to this debate, this debate is about whether creationism should be taught in science classes. Your argument is also fallacious, as we can examine both what continues to occur and the results of the past. To have someone observe it is exactly the same, as we assume the observer could observe what happens and document in someway what happened, just like we can today, and then we observe the results of the observation and documentation that occurred when it happened. You may believe that there is a caring creator, but we will not allow you to teach words as truth without using competent thought, logic, and evidence to prove if it is in fact truth. The greatest differences, though, between creationism and science, is that creationism is it can't be formed into a hypothesis, for there is no prediction it makes. Creationism doesn't answer as many questions as effectively as evolution, "the big bang" theory, and the plethora of other scientific theories used to gain greater explanation of our universe. Evolution explains why classification can be done, why do we see similar features in different species, why do creatures have the imperfect designs they have. Scientific theories help to explain, but creationism doesn't explain. You would not accept "because evolution made it so", yet creationism says "because God made it so". Why do all vertebrates have a bilateral body plan? Because God gave them that! Why don't starfish have it then? Because God decided to give them a radial body. These are not answers, they are obvious statements equivalent to saying "because they do". Creationism and science are different ways of approaching the world, one of answering questions with fairy tales and "because!" explanations, and the other is observing everything we can and piecing it together logically.

You have approached the dilemma with bias, this is quite contrary to the scientific method. Strange you would defy the thing you are trying to say your beliefs fit with.

Assumption: God wrote the Bible. Supporting statement: God wrote the Bible. If God wrote the Bible, then God wrote the Bible. Fallacious argument. This argument is an assumption that is unproven, unprovable, and impossible to disprove. Such is the opposite of science, logic, and competent thought. This is truly laughable.

For such an idea to work a strict list must be made of real science texts that use science, the scientific method, and approach the dilemma without bias. No school should be able to deviate from this list, lest we find propaganda in place of science text (On Pandas and People and its comrades in biased, fallacious lies would be appropriately seated somewhere not on this list of science texts). If not implemented, creationist lies would become the norm of a classroom setting, and the kids would not learn to differentiate science and dogmatic beliefs and instead learn to cling to holy scripture and demand inappropriate amounts of evidence for anything not stated in the bible, whilst holding the flaming double standard of "Our argument is proven by faith; we can't believe you until you explain the entire universe, the meaning of life, and prove that there is no God in any form whatsoever".

The Bible makes many incorrect claims about the physical world, such as insects having 4 legs (Lev 11:21-22), rabbits chewing cud (they do not) (Lev 11:6), snakes eating dirt and/or dust (Genesis 3:14), bats being birds (Lev 11:13,19 and Deu 14:11-12,18), Earth being motionless (Psalms 104:5) and many more. It seems as if the bible is incorrect at least occasionally when it makes claims about the natural world, thus making statement 1 incorrect. The implied statement that statement 1 proves that everything in the bible is correct is fallacious, as being correct on any number of claims the bible makes can't guarantee accuracy of any other claim made by the bible (fallacy of composition). Statement 2, a supporting fact, is not provided with proof of any experiments or investigations with the purpose of disproving the bible, let alone evidence that the results were in favor of literal biblical text. Statement 3 attempts to poorly support statement 2; my investigation of statement 3 has not yet brought up anything more than a list of heavy creation-biased sites, each full of a plethora of garbage, and some questions on answers.yahoo.com (the answers to these questions seem to share the criticisms I have for statement 2 and 3). If statement 2 and 3 can even be considered correct, then a more reasonable site should have an article documenting events such as claimed by statement 2. Gypsy21's argument must be incorrect, as all statements are false and/or lacking evidence, and all logic is fallacious.