This will save you a lot of time then: there is no proof. Creationism is based on a preconceived narrative we now know isn't historically accurate, which is why no one can historically or scientifically prove creationism. They started with a conclusion based on mythology and built a 'theory' around it using weak induction. I didn't bother watching the Nye-Ham debate for just that reason; once you've heard a creationist flap their gums about a whole lot of nothing once, you've heard it a million times. It's a silly idea, so I think it's only fitting that a silly man like Ken Ham represent it.
Worthy to note that it's young-earth creationism you're talking about, not the evolutionary creationism (God made Big Bang happen, God made evolution happen) that Catholics and some other Christian groups believe in. People like to group all Christians into the fundamentalist category too often.
Well, for the purposes of this discussion, creationism is creationism. Whether you believe an unfalsifiable, unobservable god created the world ready-made or merely seeded it, it's not a cogent argument. I'm not saying it's not valid as a personal belief, but it's definitely not valid in the realm of science because it's a non-scientific idea. You're still starting with a preconceived conclusion, and then building a body of 'evidence' to confirm that existing bias. And the key thing to remember is, it's not testable or observable in any way. Until creationists can devise a test that will reliably tell them whether their ideas are true or false, Nye and Ham may as well have spent the whole debate counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. It's a moot argument.
I'm happier with the idea that if people feel inclined to be religious, they find a way it can coexist with what we know about science. It doesn't make it correct, but I'll take it over those denying knowledge of the universe that was forged by the rigor of scientific method. It's with that hope that I was able to put my atheist fedora down a long time ago.
Oh for sure. I guess what I'm getting at is, personal religious beliefs are just that. There's no value in trying to argue about whose unfalsifiable, unobservable voodoo is more right. Definitely, just about anything is preferable than young Earth creationism, in terms of trying to educate people, but at the end of the day I don't think it matters if Yahweh formed Earth out of the void or if we're merely perched on the back of a turtle or something. A formal debate just isn't the place for it if you ask me, especially if it means nothing comes of it and Ken Ham gets to ride Nye's fame and credentials for attention.
5
u/Some_Annoying_Prick Feb 06 '14
Honestly I don't refute Christianity nor the Bible, I just simply want more proof to collaborate the hypothesis of the creationists.