They forgot the most controversial "missing links" (should anyone find them)- the amoeba-man and wormo-sapiens. Although, these would be, in actuality, disapproving the evolutionary theory, rather than confirming the transitional species.

This was interesting, but I'd like to see more discussions like the one Dawkins held with the Bishop of Oxford. Calm discussion seems to be more aware of the nature of the argument, and makes more progress with the glacier-like slow and mammoth movement of the god question. Thousands of years of inability to prove the existence of God, and the guy who starred in the "Left Behind" movie (needless to say, horrible film)and his mustached friend are going to prove it? Oi. I'm a theist, but I don't think that the "creation = a creator" argument holds water in a rational debate like that. It may at most suggest a creator, but by no means proves it. Furthermore, couldn't they have at least had a theistic evolutionist on there? Shame Kirk Cameron for misunderstanding evolution in a major way.

I think it helped that Kelly was frign hot

LOL @ Mark. My friend Miguel was also drooling. Ha ha.

Anyway, the ABC editing didn't do much justice. I'm watching it now as I write.

oh, kirk. you used to be an "evolutionist"? please. frocodile? no comment.

kelly? highly bangable.

Wow. Kirk must be desperate for camera time ever since the Left Behind series was canceled. When Ray mentioned Kirk's involvement is "tanking his Hollywood career," he assumes that Kirk's position could sink even lower. And it has. Shame.

And yeah Kelly is highly bangable.

At the end of the second part, you can see Brian arguing with the host of WOTM Radio, you can see what happened on their front page.

http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/

One of the reasons I don't watch local or broadcast news is you get this sense that things were SO stripped down and in many ways contrived in the editing process. I don't think there will ever be a record of the full debate as it was because Dateline can't stuff it all into a 20 minute segment.

Notice How NONE of the arguements were really fleshed out. This is why the full posting of the Hannity v. salt lake mayor was for me much more engaging in that I could see past all the yelling and analyze the point of view unobstruced.

Wow, I can't believe the boorishness of you people. "Highly bangable"? Please. "Highly screwable," or "highly fuckable" if you must.

Has it ever bothered anyone else how the WOTM website is one of the best around? I mean, that thing is scary good, which also makes it incredibly funny, but still.

Terrible, they cut out my favorite part! Kirk and Ray get absolutely stunned into silence at one point and do nothing to reply to a major refutation of their claims.

Not to mention they didn't show that Comfort was quoting the bible through much of it.

Heh, and I saw the soda can! He brought one!

And the pictures. My goodness, Kirk, it's so simple that a child can see you're one fucked up guy. Yeesh.

Wow! now there's a credibility battle.

Kirk & co vs. Bashir vs RRS.

Poor quality arguments all round really, Think I'll just look at the boobies.

I like boobies.

I'm a bit confused. Is he saying that Da Vinci created the universe?

This should have been called The Half-Wit Challenge. With these four retards arguing for and against the existence of god, I think I need to be provided a third option. I've heard better arguments from second graders.

Aren't Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort the two douches from an earlier video you posted Norm? As I recall they maintained the banana was proof of God due to its perfect design for the human hand. Religious stupidity never seizes to amaze...

Sorry for double-posting but I just wanted to add a comment. I found the response to the question concerning Christ's existence being proof of God somewhat of a cop-out. Instead of saying there is little evidence to support his existence as a historical character (I think the evidence actually DOES support it), a better response would have been to say that Julius Caesar and Augustus are also historical people who were later made into deities through their actions, so by the same logic does that mean they were actually Gods?

Or does the historical existence of Marcus Furius Camillus prove the legend that he persuaded the Goddess Juno regina to abandon Veii for Rome?

The logic of the question is flawed to begin with and it would have been nice if the two atheists had actually been able to point that out.

Sorry but I didn't hear who was for or against religion. I just kept looking at Kelly (who by the way doesn't sound too smart).

Dawkins vs the Bishop of Oxford was a better debate all around. Each presented their case without actually screaming at each other. They actually found some common ground (and by that I don't mean they agree). Also, Kelly was not involved so I paid attention to what they were saying.

Wow - that was moronic all around. What a waste of time. I feel bad for the audience. They attended hoping for a valid debate and got idiots jousting with q-tips. I'm with the previous commenters; I loved the Dawkins/Bishop discussion.

I love how the show kept calling it a "battle" - Lol.

I'm an atheist, but I think I was just as embarrassed by the Rational Response Squad as average Christians are about televangelists. I'm also embarrassed that Martin Bashir's assessment was that, "At least people are talking." How productive is this kind of debate?--it doesn't promote any useful knowledge but only acts to polarize those involved. There are perfectly "moral" atheists out there ... just as there are perfectly sane Christians/Buddhists/Hindus/etc. who understand faith AS faith. I'm also embarrassed that Kelly poised herself as the airheaded, hot woman--and got a response--demonstrating that some ways of thinking really haven't evolved at all.

I liked it better when Kirk Cameron's best friend was Boner.

Re: Kelly

Usually I get pretty annoyed with people when they talk at length about the merits of a particular argument or idea, but when there's a woman involved suddenly it's about how "doable" she is. In the case of Kelly, however, I think that's exactly her role in RRS. "Hey check out our HOTT atheist chick!" And is it just me, or have her boobs grown at least 4 times their original size?

At any rate. I didn't expect much from this thing, and I got exactly what I was expecting.

I think my favorite part of all of this is when Comfort starts talking about "if you look at a painting..." and holds up a print.

I hope the RRS shot down the "sheepdawg" (sigh) with some evidence (like the crocidile fish recently found) or some explaination that what kirk was talking about WAS NOT evolution, he was talking about the God version of creation (Poof, There's a duck, Poof, theres a possum, Poof, theres a crociduck)

Hitchins vs. Kirk Cameron would be awesome.

I just kept looking at Kelly (who by the way doesn't sound too smart).

She wasn't alone up there--in sounding stupid, that is. What a god-awful debate. I'm an atheist, but I would prefer for the Rational Response Squad to disband. They do a disservice to the cause of irreligion. I mean, Brian "Sapient"? Jesus Christ. I'm not sure that Dawkins or Hitchens does a good job of promoting the cause either, but at least they're intelligent and eloquent. The Rational Response Squad just sound like they watched The God Who Wasn't There and took it as gospel. Suggesting that a sizable number of historians doubt the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is a bit of a stretch. Not quite as big of a stretch as the crocoduck, mind you, but close. There's much more to irreligion than the RRS angle. I hope that people aren't turned away by the idiocy of the RRS.

This debate was pretty sad. The atheists won, obviously, but only because the Cameron and Comfort looked like complete idiots. Not the best people for either side.

For those that want to watch the entire debate, it looks like Nightline is putting the whole thing up on their website. Looks like the rest is going to go up today at 1pm.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

LOL one more shout out to Kelly!!! I loves you Kelly <3 <3

i have to agree, as an atheist i found the whole segment embarrassing. Martin Bashir is douche bag and Nightline has gone to the toilet since ted left.

I wish someone could post the singing video from the MIT engineers from last year, that alone would clear the bile in my throat this brought up.

And someone needs to show kirk, ( Mr. there is no missing link in fossil record between birds and dinosaurs) this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

furthermore, his and intelligent design proponents lame suggestion we have not witnessed evolution in our lifetime, thus evolution isn't observable thus cant be valid (i haven't sen any resurrections lately either Kirk) this is patently false.

Viruses evolve all the time. In Hawaii, there is a butterfly which in our life time has generated mouth parts which allow it to feed on plants which were invasive species introduced within a decade. And a child could understand the breeding of animals demonstrates how desirable characteristics can evolve based on breeding the "fittest" pairs.

Ian, you are right on the money. The same feeling you had as an Atheist I had as a Christian about Cameron and partner. You can say that my faith is blind and I accept that as a valid argument…I made my choice in life and it is one where I find comfort. Still, I do recognize the questions been asked by Atheist are valid and should be responded accordingly (not with illustrations of weird animals). To question your faith is not a bad thing and I just wish people like Cameron would stop defending God. Kirk, go and help those less fortunate without trying to convince them they are going to go to hell if they don't convert…please.

Everyone keeps saying that the lack of proof of a historical Jesus was a weak point in the atheists argument . . . but they are actually right about that. Albert Schweizer spent years trying to find the historical Jesus, and finally gave up in despair. In the end, all we have are the gospels, written 50-90 years after Jesus' alleged lifetime, and the earlier letters of Paul. We have no evidence that Jesus wasn't simply created by Paul, though there is corroboration for the early Jesus movement within Judaism.

Bart Erman's book "Jesus: Apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium" gives an excellent, scholarly, and enjoyable summary of where historians are on all of this.

I was actually impressed with how ABC presented the story. The actual debated isn't all that interesting to me but that it gets media attention is IMO a huge benefit to us. Us being the one's with reality on our side.

The Rational Response Squad sure as hell isn't doing much to help the public view of atheism. Shrugging, rolling eyes, saying "here we go" when Bashir brings up Jesus, calling Cameron a "numbnut" -- Cameron and Comfort are obviously morons and numbnuts, but you don't goddamn SAY that if you're trying to convince mankind that not all atheists are elitist douchebags.

Cameron and Comfort lost from the standpoint of sheer logical argument, but the atheists, unfortunately, lost in the long run: the Nightline excerpts showed only their most assholish moments without focusing too heavily on the moments like the one where Kirk refused to respond to a question he had no answer to.

As dumb as the Christians were, they looked infinitely more composed and respectable thanks to a mixture of creative Nightline editing and genuine assholishness from the atheists. This debate won't change a single person's mind, which is exactly what it should have done.

You know, I went to the Rational Response Squad website to find out more about these people. My feeling is that they are simply media hounds. So now they are probably going to be in every talk show that will dare have them representing all the Atheist out there. Since Kelli's breast have augmented (at least from a previous Nightline segment) she is going to get booked to be the spokesperson for the movement. I can already see a producer going "Dawkins or that hot babe who doesn't believe in God? Who will Christians watch? Uhm…"

I agree that the Rational Response Squad is an embarassment to atheists. I don't need McBoobies Nosurname asking America to take my ideas seriously. Only strippers go by one name, Kelly. And Brian "Sapient"? His unbuttoned shirt and arm draped around Kelly, using terms like "numbnut"? Is he serious? They are horrendous speakers and need to take a debate class. Their YouTube video also made me cringe-- at least this version had two people acting even more ridiculous to take the focus off them.

Martin Bashir is a yucky opportunist masquerading as a journalist. He should go back to covering Michael Jackson as it would lend him more legitimacy than this crap.

And, after reading the 15-year-old-boy-esque comments here, I officially think I'm the only woman who reads this blog. Lovely work men, lovely work.

BlackMamba, my apologies but she was such an easy target in that moronic show. She looked like she was going to a party rather than a serious debate.

I also agree with you about Martin Bashir. His journalist credentials are suspect and, after the Michael Jackson interview where Bashir's edited version made MJ look more guilty (like he needs any help in this area) you knew he was an opportunist. No wonder he moved to the US where nowadays anyone can pass for a journalist.

Wow...Cameron is a loony. The "bullfrog" and "sheepdog"? Give me a break...those are such absurd examples. I'm so fired about about this that I can barely comprehend how terrible their argument for creationism is.

I'm to the point that whenever I hear a religious person talk about their religion, it just sounds like they are delusional.

This debate was harmful to both sides of the argument. They couldn't have picked more unqualified and uninformed participants.

Also... ABC's editing was obviously done in a way as to not evoke a leaning to one side or the other.

Cowards and morons ruled this lame broadcast.

She wasn't alone up there--in sounding stupid, that is. What a god-awful debate. I'm an atheist, but I would prefer for the Rational Response Squad to disband. They do a disservice to the cause of irreligion. I mean, Brian "Sapient"? Jesus Christ.

I've visited the Rational Response Squad and quite frankly I am not impressed. Rook Hawkins is, in my opinion, the only gem out of the entire group because he has historical and theological sophistication with the likes of Richard Carrier. He's actually preparing a book by the end of this year which I eagerly await and writing it with the help of Carrier himself.

Often times I hear words thrown out by them such as "rationality" and "logic" yet aside from their theological discourse, they don't seem to by applying it in any other areas. I remember one regular in the forums there said he was going to move in with a woman he met online whom he has never even seen in person! And he's moving in with her after a few emails and myspace comments? What's wrong with this picture? The problem with religious belief—or any belief really—is that it extends to other aspects of one's life. Remember the movie Dumb and Dumber? Jim Carrey asks Lauren Holly how much of a chance he has in getting together with her: “Is it about a 1 out of 100 chance perhaps?” She says, "More like 1 out of a million." Jim then replies, "...so you're telling me there IS a chance!" See, we laugh at ridiculous remarks like these because we can clearly see the flaw in the statement, yet when the same person who laughed at this scene turns around and goes to buy a lotto ticket thinking he has a great chance in winning all of a sudden this logic is suspended and probability is replaced with magical thinking. Of course this is a benign example compared to the more critical ones we've already heard ad nauseum. I think the atheists in this debate should have applied the skeptic argument in a broader viewpoint and explained why this debate is important for the future of civilization and not because it is some intellectual masturbation.

Kirk was trying to conclude that since one guy created a forgery by gluing fossils together that disproves evolution. I don't understand that reasoning but I've never been a fundy. But would it make sense that since the ossuary that was supposed to hold Jesus' brother's bones and the Shroud of Turin were both forgeries doesn't that disprove Christianity? It does if you use Kirk's reasoning.

Kirk also said he did some research regarding evolution. Somehow I don't think he ever did any research much less get published. For someone who doesn't understand the basic concepts of evolution (much less chromosomes and reproduction) he's probably a good of a scientist as he is an actor.

Brilliant rebuttal by Brian. In order to walk a mile you have to take many steps. Once again that concept befuddled Ray and Kirk.

I saw this last night, what a dissapointment. Niether side was convincing and niether side did what they said they would do. The God Squad didn't prove anything about the existence of God, especially wihtout using faith. And the Athiests didn't really argue why God is non-existent, mostly they just pointed out how bad the God Squad's arguments were, and they were really bad.

I think the Athiests get a slight nod simply because Kirk Cameron held up a picture of a Croco-Duck! LOL! That was his proff that evolution is wrong? Huh?

Bottom line, the Christians talked like they were preaching to 3 year olds and the Athiests mostly just ripped them vs. actually proving God doesn't exist.

Next time nightline should invite Richard Dawkins instead.

Is there an uncut version of this debate? cause every single thing the Christian side said could be refuted with a single sentence. The whole missing link photoshop thing was really sad. I was embarrassed for them. I mean look at the horse, we have it's complete evolutionary record going back to prehistoric time. I feel like maybe they cut the clips the way they did so that it would look like a tie just so their Christian viewers wouldn't think it was biased.

There may have been some good arguments made, but I couldn't get past the Coke can crap to find out… sort of doubt it though.

Kirk Cameron…actor and scientist By the way, I think Growing Pains is what originally caused me to give up television.

Thanks ProfessorPlum for correcting the misinformation others posted about the historical Jesus. Other than the bible there is no mention of Jesus in any other written account* from around the same time period. Sort of odd considering the degree of notoriety he is given in the bible, unless he is simply a fabricated character in a work of fiction.

*The validity of the mention of Jesus in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus is suspect.

To paraphrase Monty Python:

"Well ladies and gentlemen, I don't think any of our contestants this evening have succeeded in encapsulating the intricacies of [the existential argument], "so I'm going to award the first prize this evening to the girl with the biggest tits."

Hahaha. That crazy woman who asks the question and then goes apeshit when he doesn't say "cancer" deserves to have a remix made.

what I don't understand about this debate is why people cannot have faith and believe that rationality can co-exist in the same realm. Yes there are people out there who are believers, but what about finding out the truth and allowing yourself to believe in your own faith or spirituality or whatever you call it as you see fit?

...as you see fit...

I think you just answered you own question Jennson.

Thanks ProfessorPlum for correcting the misinformation others posted about the historical Jesus.

As far as I can tell, I alone posted said "misinformation" about the historical Jesus. But it is hardly misinformation. Suggesting that a sizable number of historians doubt the historicity of Jesus is akin to suggesting that a sizable number of biologists doubt the theory of evolution or that a sizable number of climatologists doubt that humans play an important role in global warming. As it turns out, most historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, that he was a Jewish carpenter, and that he was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate. A small, fringe minority of historians contend that Jesus never existed. To admit that Jesus of Nazareth existed in no way validates the idea that he was the Son of God. I think that the irreligious crowd mistakenly believe that if they admit to the existence of Jesus, then that somehow provides credibility to the idea that Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead. Thus, they insist on denying that such a man ever existed. Their denial is unnecessary, and it is a belief that is not widely held by historians. Rest assured that just because there once existed a man named Jesus, that does not mean that Christianity is in any way a true religion.

"I can already see a producer going 'Dawkins or that hot babe who doesn't believe in God? Who will Christians watch? Uhm…'"

I would vote Dennet, but that's just me.

Well, it seems the crock-o-duck and the bull-frog have hybridized. We now have documentary evidence for the existence of the crock-o-bull.

It's been a while since I've seen broadcast TV. This is what I'm missing. A sad embarrassment for all.

It's funny that Kirk claims to have been an atheist until his supposed conversion at age 17, yet I read that he gave an interview in Tiger Beat magazine in 1984, when he would've been only 14, where he claimed to be a Christian.

It's funny when those who had little interest in their religion prior to being "born again" or whatever that it means they were an atheist. It's even more pathetic that they seem to think it gives their belief legitimacy.

It's also doubtful that he was ever taught evolution in any classroom considering his formative years were spent on the set of a television show.

With that said, ABC did a real butcher job with what they showed on Nightline.

Wow, that dinosaur duck reminded me a bit of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sinornithosaurus.gif

Wow, yeah. Funny, that.

Wow, that dinosaur duck reminded me a bit of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sinornithosaurus.gif

Wow, yeah. Funny, that.

I should add that I personally think it likely that Jesus did exist, that he was born in Nazareth and not Bethlehem, and that he was put to death at some point which caused his followers to have a major existential crisis.

A better way to talk about this may be to say that the historical evidence we have now is equally consistent with two theories: that stories about Jesus relate back to a flesh and blood human, and that stories about Jesus arose from a concept about what such a person might be like. Without more evidence, we'll never know. After all, the story of "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" was just made up, about what such a person as Jesus would be like, and it was added to scripture and is now accepted as historical "truth" by those who don't know better. Maybe most or all of the gospel stories and Paul's writtings on Jesus are similar.

Here are links to the entire debate, in two parts: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1229854964003619354&q=nightline+face-off&total=30&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6382436755066123640&q=nightline+face-off&total=30&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6