Ciara's Friday Reaction

My boy Nye came through clutch. I have tried to remain unbiased while watching this, and I tried to keep an open mind so that maybe I could understand where Ham was coming from. However, especially in comparison to Nye, Hamms arguments just weren't sufficient, nor as progressive. 

In our progressive, scientific world, bill Nye has the advantage. It is becoming less and like probable that the creation story has any validity, and more and more believable that science holds the answers to our origins. Therefore, Ham spent most of his time trying to prove why Nye's argument shouldn't be taken anymore seriously than his, while Nye proceeds to give evidence as to why his ideas are valid as well as why Ham's are not. 

One of Ham's arguments was that our technological dating was inaccurate because different elements of discovered fossils came back from the lab with different dates of origin. One test came back with 56 million years, while one came back with 50 thousand years. While I see how this data is skewed, Ham fails to acknowledge that these numbers are both significantly larger than Ham's claimed "six thousand five hundred year old earth". This is one of the most glaring errors with Ham's argument. Multiple scientific proofs show that the world is billions of years old, yet Ham is telling us that our world is only six hundred and fifty. 

I don't mean to offend anyone in class, and I'm sorry if I have. I just have very strong views about this subject and sometimes I can't help but voice my opinions/frustrations. 

Also, Natalie and I were talking after class and she made an interesting point...did they put two dinosaurs on the ark too? Because I don't know if a wooden ark can hold 2 full grown T-Rexes. 

Ps. Natalie reproduces by budding

Traditional fish sex am I right