A live TV debate on creationism between a scientist and a creationist has sparked a global conversation about the beginnings of life on earth.
Scientist Bill Nye went up against Ken Ham, a creationist, at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. In a debate that lasted over two hours, the two men discussed "How did we get here?"
Some scientists have argued that Nye should not have taken part in the debate, as it gave credibility to creationism, which asserts that life on earth was put there by a divine being.
Ham believes the world was created 6,000 years ago by the Christian god, as set out in Genesis.
Creationists believe their ideas about the origins of life should be taught in school. They say the US constitutional ban on religious instruction in state schools should not apply to them, as their argument does not necessarily relate to just one religion.
In Kentucky, creationism is taught alongside science. This arrangement is hotly contested, however, with scientists and many educators saying this threatens scientific education.
Tickets to watch the live debate sold out in just two minutes, but viewers were invited to watch live online through a streaming service, which around 600,000 people chose to do.
Throughout the debate, people put their views across on Twitter using the hashtag #creationdebate, which was trending across the US throughout the night and into the morning.
Several arguments emerged from the debate. Some said giving creationists a platform to put their views forward suggested their arguments were credible, therefore diminishing the credibility of the US scientific community.
In one argument, Ham and Nye end up discussing how many creatures could have fitted on Noah's Ark.
Others said the debate was pointless, as people will either vehemently believe or refute creationism regardless of the views put forward.
During his argument, Nye said that he was willing to accept that science can be proved wrong, and that he accepts boundaries to knowledge, but said science is difficult to refute because of its verifiability and predictability.
Ham refused to believe that scientific papers provide proof. He pointed to research that had not been peer reviewed and said the bible explains everything. He also said he could never be persuaded to think differently.
Below are some of the tweets sent out during the live debate: