|I watched the creation-evolution debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I think Ham presented some decent arguments about the difference between historical and observational science, and Nye presented some good arguments for why the earth can't be young. I thought Ham's presentation was more polished and organized, while Nye seemed to kind of be all over the place. Nye was the first to make it a little argumentative, with his claim that Ham wasn't proving some of his points. But other than that, things seemed to be pretty civil, which was sort of a win.
I think the turning point in the whole debate was when a question was asked concerning what it would take to change either debater's mind. Ham started off with "as a Christian" and ended with some variation of "nothing". Nye simply though eloquently stated "evidence". For me, that's what the whole thing is about, and it's what makes me happy I'm on the evolution side. What would it take to completely destroy theories and science? Evidence.
To be fair, I would be completely surprised if even a single person who watched the debate had even the slightest doubt as to which side they supported and which side they thought would win. So contrary to my normal opinion on such matters, there was no real winner or loser. Each side presented their arguments, and the audience was left to go back to believing what they already believed. #religion