Natalie Thrusday

I tried to remain unbiased during the debate, but there were some issues I encountered. Ken Ham was very repetitive in his argument, the entire time he was basically repeating the same concepts and trying to prove how he was not wrong because basically you could never know. To prove his point he "redefined" science and evolution. He kept saying you could never know because none of us were there, which could have made sense if there was not an abundance of evidence supporting evolution. He even says the we cannot trust half-life or carbon dating, but he never actually gives us reasons not to trust them. I feel like the whole time he was just trying to make creationism seen as a valid opinion on the creation of Earth, but not by supporting it with evidence instead by trying to say that we cannot know anything. We have yet to finish the debate, but I am very eager to watch Bill Nye's side of the argument, and most importantly how he will respond to the questions Ham asked him during his speech. I have to admit, Ham's accent made listening to his argument a little more bearable.