Okay, now in fairness I only watched 15 minutes of it.

It's very easy to win an argument by using singular pieces of evidence and tearing it to shreads. He couldn't possibly have chosen a worse document on evolution to dissect. There's a lot of evolutionary rubbish out there. Just as (any non-deluded person must agree) there's a lot of Christian rubbish out there. If the man wishes to really win an argument he needs to find solid, strong pieces of literature with which to go up against. Not weak ones. Simply by virtue of the fact that he hand picked the cheapest, most amateur text on evolution he's already discredited himself. I say this because many evolutionists would likely also disagree with the statements he was quoting from the school text book on evolution.


That's what he says at one point. Well isn't that great. Except that he does the exact same thing towards evolution.

Another way the man loses points in his own argument is that he's a Christian who's invited a bunch of Christians and he's preaching about the falsehoods of evolution to these people. It's a pretty cheap tactic, really. If he were going up against his adversaries and allowing them to reply, rather than asking the crowd absurd questions (questions that can only result in the yes that he wants to hear or the no that he wants to hear) I'd happily give him a round of applause.

Most of these debates are just so much rubbish from both ends. Here's a bunch of bigwig hotshot scientists stating what they think may be true as more or less fact. All the while opposing them are a bunch of bigwig hotshot Christians stating what they think may be true as, also, a fact. Here's a fact for you all. Nobody knows!

But text books lie all the time. 50 years ago history books described the ancient Mayans as a peaceful civilization. It said this as a fact, not a "We're pretty sure about this". Lo and behold evidence was uncovered indicating that they were a ritually sacrificial and bloody nation.

It happens. What can you do? Maybe both parties should just slow down in their quest to be "right" and reduce their alleged facts to very plausible theories.

Gravity is a fact. Inertia is a fact. Micro-evolution is a fact (this is even agreed upon by Creationists). Macro-evolution is stated as a fact and while, in my opinion it makes pretty decent sense, it's not proven and thus is not (yet) a fact. At the end of the day, all I really see is a bunch of opponents blowing smoke.

What I'd like to see is both parties discussing the matter on neutral territory. A discussion that is not hosted by one side or the other (and thus not biased). This was a Christian man hosted by a Christian venue. I would say the same thing were it an Evolutionist hosted by an Evolutionist venue. Of course I'm going to look strong in my debate if everyone around me agrees with me. And that holds true whether you're debating evolution, creation, or the price of tea in China.