2007-05-15 11:21:07 · 10 answers · asked by Samantha 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Honestly, I was disappointed with the whole thing. NEITHER side stayed on the topic.
Comfort & Cameron claimed to have objective, scientific evidence of God, outside of anything from the Bible. The most they had where a few trite rewordings of the old "watchmaker" argument. Instead, they spent their time talking about personal anecdotes (which are just that - PERSONAL) and why they think the Bible is important.
Likewise, the RRS could have handled the arguments much better. There was no need to bring up the historicity of Jesus debate. That just led to more confusion. I've seen plenty of better debators. I expected better of them, especially in the face of such trite arguments like Pascal's Wager, "the first mover", and crap like that.
Regardless, Comfort & Cameron came on their because they claimed to have "scientific proof" that God exists, and they never showed it. So they lost the debate.
2007-05-15 11:25:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rational Response squad made a few mistakes, but in general they were correct on their statements. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron did a lousy job at trying to debate creationism and as the such many Creationist must have cringed.
Overall, it went about how I expected it to, the creationists trying to pursued people with personal testimonies and "feelings" and the Atheists providing solid evidence..
2007-05-15 11:27:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
All in all the debate was on the poor side. but Comfort and Cameron were laughable. One of the big problems was that the moderator tried to control things too much.
2007-05-15 11:36:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL Kirk Cameron.
2007-05-15 11:27:10 · answer #4 · answered by qamper 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
The atheist chick had huge **** even though it became right into a conflict of wits against unarmed fighters. heavily, Ray and Kirk are parodies of themselves. The "crocoduck" difficulty out of Kirk became into hilarious.
2016-11-04 01:09:52 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a pretty pitiful excuse for a debate. Neither side had a clue. I don't understand why ABC would choose to air a debate between amatures instead of experts.
2007-05-15 11:26:30 · answer #6 · answered by Jonathan 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Cameron and Comfort were slaughtered in the debate and broke their agreement as well.
2007-05-15 11:26:35 · answer #7 · answered by Innokent 4 · 8⤊ 0⤋
As a Christian, I was embarressed by Kirk Cameron. Because of him, I'm going to convert to Atheism.
2007-05-15 11:24:40 · answer #8 · answered by S K 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Poor on both sides.
Not worthy of the prominent television.
Get Dawkins up there if you want to see a show.
2007-05-15 11:29:16 · answer #9 · answered by Morey000 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I cant believe he said "crocoduck" and expected to be taken seriously....
2007-05-15 11:29:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋