Ken Hamm's Argument Analysis

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household, however my parents never forced the idea of “Creationism” on me, they let me make the decision for myself and I simply followed what I had learned in school, which was that the universe was much older than 6,000 years. My biggest issue regarding Ken Hamm’s argument deals with the people he brought in to enhance his point particularly Dr. Raymond Damadian. Dr. Damadian is the inventor of the MRI, while his invention is an incredibly important part of science and medicine today, his opinion on the creation of earth is not related to the field he is in. Whether or not he is a Creationist does not impact his invention of the MRI. Hamm treated it as a lecture instead of a debate. Bill Nye from his opening statement, acknowledged the other side of the argument, stating that religious groups, "worship together, they eat together, they live in their communities and enjoy each other's company" however, not all of them believe in this idea of creationism.

However, he did not just say that it was widely believed which I think was helped secure the debate for him. He rattled off scientific facts, things that have been proven time and time again that cannot be argued. The biggest difference in their arguments is Bill Nye can prove his points has correct, however Ken Hamm can only say they have not been proven as false. So I felt that Ken Hamm talked about the same point over and over again, where Bill Nye was given the opportunity to rattle off fact after fact, leading to what I believe was him winning the