Overall, the debate was amateurish since neither side was particularly compelling. The Comfort/Cameron duo were passionate and I could resonate with their message. Having said this they should have spent some time reading the materialistic diatribes of the talk.origins.com propaganda so they would be prepared to answer the atheists. In the Art of War, Sun Tzu said:
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will win hundred times in hundred battles. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you win one and lose the next. If you do not know yourself or our enemy, you will always lose.
Comfort/Cameron failed to know what the atheists were going to defend with, and they failed to deliver on their bold claim. It is a bold claim that has been debated since...before the time of Noah. Unsurprisingly, they could not deliver.
While my public speaking skills are unpolished and naive, I wish the passionate Christian duo would have asked me for some tips on where to look for information to present. They could have checked out my blog favorites for VOLUMES of information regarding the scientific evidence that supports scripture. They lost the debate before it started since their bold claim needed a starting point. The atheist team pointed this out on a particularly embarrassing exchange for the Christians when they said something like, "You promised scientific evidence, but you said that God is outside of time and the universe. You broke your own rules. We believe the universe is infinite, you believe that God is infinite" Cameron/Comfort sat stunned for a few seconds before Cameron repeated that "...we believe..." to which the atheists responded, "Well, we believe..." It was appalling to me that when the moderator asked Cameron/Comfort if they would like to respond to the atheists, both men looked perplexed and unwilling to engage in debate by saying simply, "I think people can figure it out."
I loved their passion, but I was disappointed with the results.
In the next post, I'll argue against the atheist's claims.
A more qualified debater for the Christians would have been the much-maligned and wrongfully imprisoned Kent Hovind. His powerful logic and experience as a debater would have benefited the Christian side of the debate. His brash demeanor and keen reasoning would have put the atheists in their place.