Atheist in Wonderland offered this link:

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2004/10/jason-gastrich-vs-dan-barker.php

And I wanted to give a couple of highlights.

1. Possibly the funniest part of the debate. Jason Gastrich discusses the fact that he believes in the historicity of the BIble based on biblical prophecy. Barker then discusses how all the supposed prophecies are vague and not really worthy of the label as "prophecy". If the prophecies were real, it would say something like "Israel will return in 1948 after World War II," not something vague without dates or historical events. He then illustrates the idiocy of attributing prophecy to the Bible: "Suppose I say, 'One day, the United States will have trouble with its enemies.' Is that a valid prophecy?"

2. If God knows the future and has a divine plan, he is mechanical and deterministic, like a robot or a computer. God could not be a sentient being in any possible way similar to humans. Such a being is not "personal" nor is it admirable and worthy of our respect as "all-loving".

3. Science need not be "directly" observed, for we have indirect evidence of historical human events, earth events, and events in the universe.