Ken Ham: - It's true because the Bible is correct. The Bible is the word of God and he's magnificent and stuff and that's all there is to it. - I won't address your points because God is great. - Check out my website. - Here's a bunch of people with PhDs in engineering, and here's a guy who invented the MRI scanner. What they've said is correct because... look! PhDs. - You can't prove it because you weren't there. - I don't literally believe the Bible, but I "naturally" do. - There's a book that answers all your questions. It's called the Bible... which is true. - Even though this is a creation debate, I'm going to spruik my views about how abortion is wrong, anything other than man-woman marriage is wrong, etc... - "Evolutionists", "Secularists", "Atheists" - Don't forget to check out my website. I do experimental computer science where everything is [pretty much] absolute (computers are generally closed systems, and controlled by laws dictated by humans). Anything I put forth and make a claim about I have to support with high quality evidence. However, it is not the only thing I have to provide. I also have to justify why the methodology I've chosen to adhere to in my study is the most appropriate one to use - why is the process I've used to measure, gather, etc... my results is suitable. The conclusions I draw from my results also needs to be justifiable, but I also need to make sure that I show humility and not overstep my bounds on what I can support. That, in my opinion, is the fundamental difference between the creationist argument and the scientific one: the standard of proof. Essentially, you can take the Bible's word for some position, because it says it's right (or you "feel" it's correct) - because [i]the Christian god supposedly says so[/i] (remember, it was written and translated by fallible human beings) - or you can view it from the scientific viewpoint. That you can examine the results from which the conclusions were obtained. That you can criticise the methodology and explain why it's wrong/bias/produces incorrect results/etc... (you can even propose an alternative that you believe - and can justify - will produce correct results). You can examine the source for potential biases, COIs (conflicts of interests), etc... and criticise them. As far as I'm concerned, there really is no contest here. In this day and age we should demand a higher standard for such claims like those about the origin of our existence, and Bill Nye was absolutely correct when he mentioned about the need for scientists to embrace that idea; [url=http://www.researchtrends.com/issue22-march-2011/tipping-the-balance-the-rise-of-china-as-a-science-superpower/]it wasn't a scare tactic[/url].