Video: 2/6/14

After watching today's video, I think I am more in favor of Bill Nye's argument than I am of Ken Ham's. At one point in the debate, Bill Nye mentioned that Ham is using the bible as a scientific text and that is should somehow be more valid than scientific findings; I feel that this is a valid point. The bible is a religious text- not necessarily a scientific one. In addition, as was mentioned in class, Ken Ham continuously refers to his own website, which detracts from his argument, as he provides less direct support for his arguments. Bill Nye was, in my opinion, more successful with defending his ideas and providing proof. The wood that he brought allows for actual scientific findings in support of his argument. It is fairly common knowledge that the rings found in tree trunks are indicative of age, so the evidence of his idea proves successful.