Changes

*Ken Ham scored points by explaining that a majority does not determine the truth.

*Ken Ham scored points by explaining that a majority does not determine the truth.

*Ken Ham could have done better by explaining the political motivation driving and distorting atheistic theories of science.

*Ken Ham could have done better by explaining the political motivation driving and distorting atheistic theories of science.

*Ken Ham paused on a tough question: "what, if anything, would change your mind?"  The answer is that the Bible is logic, and the question is like asking what would convince you that 2+2=5?  Insanity, perhaps.

*Ken Ham paused on a tough question: "what, if anything, would change your mind?"  The answer is that the Bible is logic, and the question is like asking what would convince you that 2+2=5?  Insanity, perhaps.  Or another answer would have been a litany of lack of evidence and counterexamples to evolution.

*Ken Ham over-relied on his claim that it is impossible to prove unobserved things in the past, rather than taking advantage of opportunities to present evidence against an [[Old Earth]].

*Ken Ham over-relied on his claim that it is impossible to prove unobserved things in the past, rather than taking advantage of opportunities to present evidence against an [[Old Earth]].

*Ken Ham missed an opportunity to explain why the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] disproves evolution, as disorder triumphs over order even if energy is piped into the system.

*Ken Ham missed an opportunity to explain why the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] disproves evolution, as disorder triumphs over order even if energy is piped into the system.