Creationism vs. Evolution

I probably wouldn't typically bring this topic up on my own just because it's not something I generally think much about. I am solid in my views and quite frankly don't see the other side as a valid option. Recently Bill Nye (Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill Nye the Science Guy) and creationist Ken Ham had a debate, which I watched on youtube, about creationism versus evolution. Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_04S0fYU7FI

And (big surprise), I have some pretty strong feelings about it. I should probably preface this by telling you I don't believe in any religion. I don't want to attack anyone's beliefs, but I personally do not see any use to put my belief in something that cannot be proven just to make myself feel better about life's unanswered questions. I understand why people believe in religion. What it gives them. I'd just rather accept the life I have and find strength in myself. I've seen enough bad things happen to not believe anyone is watching over me.

Now most of what I know about the bible comes from Supernatural and a Sociology of Religion class I took in college. I'm no expert. But what I know of the bible, does not come across to me as realistic. From what we know of life, these things can't happen. You can't be resurrected from the dead. A virgin cannot become pregnant and birth a child. You can't build a woman out of a man's rib. I'm the first one to say things don't always have to make sense. But there is a difference between things not having answers and things having magical, superhuman explanations.

I don't understand science as much as I'd like to (I want to learn how to time-travel Quinn Mallory style, but physics is NOT my strong suit) But science offers so much more realistic explanations to me than taking the bible as truth. Having faith in your religion doesn't mean you have to be blind to the facts. You can't refute proof that is right in front of you, but I guess some people can.

As I mentioned in a post a couple days ago, science tells us the earth is 4.5 billion years. According to the bible (and Ken Ham), the earth is only 6,000 years old. Ancient trees, fossils, and ice layers also show the earth being older than 6,000 years. These are scientific examples! HOW is that a valid opinion when all the proof we have points to the fact the earth is much, MUCH older? I don't logically understand how somebody can believe that.

Ken Ham pretty much said, if you're a christian and believe in the science that the world is older than the bible states, you are not a good christian. And although I'm not religious, that seems mega harsh. But then he said the bible and science go hand in hand. When asked if the entire bible should be taken literally, he copped out by saying we need to DEFINE the term "literally". Why is it ok to take SOME things as truth and some, as Bill Nye said, as "poetry"? You can't have it both ways. There is just no basis to these creationist claims to me.

Now to me, this really didn't turn out to be an issue of if we evolved from primates or if we were created by God.  It became an issue of: is the bible realistic enough to believe? And it isn't. As far as it comes to how we got here, I don't know anything for sure. Like I have said in other posts, maybe we're not even here at all. We can't be sure. But if we are, there is really no sure way to know how. Through science, we can make the most realistic guess. I'm not positive I believe we evolved from primates. But I 100% do not believe we were created by God. I would more likely believe we just happened. Like the universe is just there, maybe we just appeared. But in my opinion, an all powerful being did not create us.