As I was not present in class today, I can see from
the other posts that Ken Ham did not have a strong argument, nor did he present
his argument in a believable manner. From what Ciara noted, Ham spent the
beginning of the debate just trying to prove Bill Nye wrong rather than prove
his own point. Juan makes good point when he says that Ham was debating the
bible as if it was science, which is clearly not. Juan also states that since
the bible was written so long ago that it is easy for the text to be
misinterpreted, which I agree with completely. Raoul makes a very strong case
that disproves creationism, the idea that we can basically see billions of
years into the past. I agree with Raoul, because we can look into the past it
is irrational to say that God created the world less than billions of years
ago. The whole idea of creationism also begs the question that if God created
everything then who or what created God?
No comments:
Post a Comment