Ray's Coke can argument was something he used way back when he debated at an American Atheist convention.  The flaw that it sets up an argument for polytheism was apparently missed on Ray.

 Kelly was right to point out that absolutely no scientific arguments were presented.  I would have went farther and mentioned that Ray conned everyone by debating under false pretenses but Kelly was probably being a bit nice since her and Brian gave them a sound beating.

Ray's bible arguments about a few of the 613 commandments was weak.  If telling a lie makes one a liar does then telling the truth make one honest?  His absolute conclusion is debunked by a contradiction since one cannot be a liar and honest at the same time if Ray's fundy logic is correct.

I just had to keep on watching the part where Ray and Kirk were introduced to the First Law of Thermodynamics.  It's a concept that is taught in grammar school but Ray and Kirk must have dropped out of school quite early considering their 'deer in the headlights' look. 

I can't imagine how Nightline can possibly make the fundies look good.  It was a completely one sided debate and Brian was right in calling Ray and Kirk on the fact that they only used fear and emotion in a debate that was billed (by Ray) as being one that would focus solely on science. 

Brian said the universe always existed? Wasn't it created 13.5 billions years ago? What happened before that?

I never thought I would live to see the day when Ray Comfort was totally stumped for something to say. Both of you (Brian and Kelly) were fabulous beyond my wildest hopes. You absolutely devastated the usually-smug and cocky Ray Comfort. I actually felt embarrassed for him, and I truly sensed that he knew that he and Kirk came across as faith-based fools. I'm so very proud to be part of Rational Responders. I'm even more proud now. Tomorrow (Wednesday) I'm spending the entire day and evening sending out email notification to everyone to watch this program. I encourage everyone reading this thread to do the same. If everyone here sends out messages to everyone in your address book, this will increase the viewership by many thousands. As Brian said at the beginning of the clip: this was an historic event -- the first time that a major network carried a debate about God's existence. Let's celebrate this great victory that Brian and Kelly have brought to us.

David Mills

Since I won't be able to watch it tomorrow, I really, REALLY hope that it is made fully available here.

So I was off by a billion years so what?

Anyway, we need space (read: a massive  universe) to store matter. No space, no matter. Otherwise where was the matter?

I feel the multiverse theory is extremely similar to God.

a)We can't prove it i.e we can't play Mr.Peabody and go there. Much like we can't see God.

b) We can ANYTHING we want about another Universe and not be proven wrong.  In my other thread I presented that Sailor Moon could exist if we had infinite universes.  Similar to the way people will say something is God's doing.

So yeah.

BGH, are you hinting that it could possibly be God? That it is at least plausible? At least as plausible as the multi-verse theory?

Come on, I know you are.

Thank you, I make this point all the time.

Here's how I'd make it rhetorically in a debate:

Ray, do you trust your wife more than me?

If so, then you must concede that all people are not equally liars.

Which means that you trust some people more than others.

That means you actually, in your real life, do not act as if everyone is a liar.

I loved that point, and it was one I suggested, although I think the RRS team already considered it. It was killer.

By the way, Comfort is whining that the atheist crowd clapped too much.   

I actually thought you were right with the 13.5 billion.

Well, big bang theory holds that all matter was once 'condenced' into a singularity.

It certainly seems grand and mystical.

The problem is that multiverse theory removes the need for a god.

I supposed you could say 'the multiverse is god', but then you'd be leaning towards pantheism, I think.

Not sure I agree, but nice points.

By the way, I disagree with the RRS team's argument that the the laws of thermodynamics forbid universe creation, the laws apply to events within the universe and not necessarily the universe itself. There are scientific ex nihilo creation theories. Want to see one?

Let me guess. Vacuum fluctuations?

[edit:fixed quote tags]

Good guess.

But the answer is: quantum tunneling. Because before you can have vacuum fluctuations, you need a vacuum (i.e. dimensionality) and quantu tunneling would work in zero dimensions (i.e. 'nothing&#39

Ironically, something from nothing is not forbidden when it comes to creating universes... it is only a law that applies within our universe.

I can't wait to watch the whole thing.  I am so glad I came across this website. 

I speak in probablities. It's abundantly more likely that the matter and energy that comprise our Universe today have always existed rather than the alternative god. Furthermore, it's equally as ridiculous for people to explain the beginning of the Universe with "god" than to say it was created by a Snarfwidget.

Before our Universe has existed I'm not sure what existed, no scientist is, what I'm sure of is that it's more likely that the matter existed in some state, rather than god.

I'll ask you the same question Ray and Kirk failed on...

If God has always existed, why can't the Universe have always existed?

It'll be available STARTING at 2pm wed et.  It'll stay on ABCs site for quite some time.

Don't forget Nightline at 11:35 est. 

 No, I'm saying the Big Bang was the beginning of our Universe, not necessarily the beginning.

One thing that impresses me about this site is that the core members are willing--more than willing, in fact--to take advice from anyone with a sound argument.  todangst, you usually make sound arguments, but I noticed when someone new showed up and spelled out a few arguments, Sapient was thankful.  Very cool. 

Had I been there, I would have clapped, too.  Is there something wrong with that?   

Oh that reminds me!

Cpt Passion Fruit is my perfume line coming this fall.

Does anyone have any links to any 'response/s' from Ray Comfort and Kirk-?

I just think that it'd be 'hilarious' to see what machination/s they have had to go through in order to (attempt-to) 'negate' their obvious trouncing-! LOL

Can we get free samples?  

I want to smell!

Easy.  Just don't take a shower for about a week.  

It is obvious to me as a person of reason, rationality and a lover of science that the debate was won easily by Brian and Kelly. The points Ray and Kirk made where I am sorry to say laughable. I wish they came up with something new but every single point they made was nonsense and unoriginal. It seemed to be that Ray just wanted this media platform to publicise himself and his ministry and proselytise to the nation.

LOL.

Not like that. I want to know what CPT's perfume smells like. 

Yeah, I know.  I was just joshin' ya.  

I’ve watched the video a few times to get to the juicy bits with them becoming smaller by the minute. I do have a couple of questions to ask.

I can’t tell what it is exactly that Kelly is referencing historically speaking that sets Ray off at this point in the video because it is the start to a new segment, so I wanted to ask Brian and Kelly how this came about and essentially where it went in terms of the debate. 

Ray steps on the security of his pulpit and lectures Kelly (and perhaps Brian as well) about the “faith” they place in history books in their argumentation. He says, “You quote history books like they are gospel; yet you ignore the gospel ‘regales’” (I think that is what he says).

Kelly starts to get a point/question in about George Washington but the applause kicks in before she can finish.

At that point Ray, emboldened no doubt by his side’s enthusiasm, spouts some nonsense about quoting history books being synonymous with blind faith “in the words of man.” Then he claims, “We have the words of the living god; the bible has substantiated itself to be god’s word by JUST OPEN STUDY… (snip schoolmarm moment)… The bible is self proving; its exomatic (sic)…blah, prophecies in our day and age… blah…most famous… blah…great seller blah…It speaks the words of history in existence before it happened…blah… Matthew…blah spherical  earth…”

Then it cuts out with you two noting that you have indeed read the bible.

I’m very curious about this exchange for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I wonder if either of you forced Ray to admit that all historical scholars of the bible note that it was written by man and that the texts within the current bible exclude many others that were not chosen by man because of various agendas throughout the ages. These are similar to points I have heard you make on the radio shows I’ve listened to at RRS. I wonder if they were used in this case and had the same effect on Ray as they did on your guests.

Secondly, I am curious to find out if this notion of “open study” he suggests as a prerequisite to reading the bible has a criteria that can be juxtaposed to the methods used to establish historicity in any text.

Based on what he has said in this debate, I imagine he would have hanged himself quite well indeed.

For what it is worth, I thought you both handled yourselves very well. I’m also excited about the full length version. Keep up the good work. I’m pleased as punch to have found you in cyberspace.

Cheers!

{Edit - removed double post}