I was glad we were able to continue with the debate because I was interested in how Bill Nye was going to defend his evolutionist perspective. I thought Nye’s argument was both valid and convincing. His take on the origin of the earth and life itself was supported with hard facts from scientific history; assumptions and predictions that were later proven to be true. He brought up a very good point about Noah’s Ark particularly the structure of the ark and how it would have been impossible for a group of 8 to build this large vessel.
By using figures in data that had been collected throughout history to prove the evolutionist perspective, I believe Nye seemed to be more convincing than Ham in that regard. Ham’s argument lacked the hard scientific evidence that Nye included in his defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment