Ciara's Thursday Reaction

I understand that I am biased because I have strong views against creationism, backed by my strong views towards naturalism. However, there are just too many holes in Ham's theories that I could not take him seriously. Rather than actually proving why his ideas are correct, he spends his entire thirty minutes trying to explain why Bill Nye and naturalism are not correct.  He fails to advocate his ideas in a way that would make me question my trust in naturalism. Ham obviously knows he is at the disadvantage in a growingly secular world (especially in a debate against Bill Nye the Science Guy) so he makes his strategy to try and break the audiences trust in naturalism, but he falls short of actually convincing me that his ideas have any merit. I look forward to hearing Bill Nye crush Ham in his debate: we know he'll have the findings of science on his side.