I will be the first to admit that I don’t know the score-keeping rules for things like this. But, focusing just on my interactions, Meyer gave away the store. Digital information? Not important or not relevant. Cells as machines? No, Meyer grants that this is not the case.
The fact that the crowd didn’t instantly renounce Christianity (or become Celtics fans) doesn’t really change the recorded fact that Meyer gave away the store. That’s gotta count for something, no?
Dr Hunt, do you think it is worthwhile to engage in debates with YEC and ID ideologues? You’re a real scientist doing real science and teaching. Why engage at all?
This comment is curious… what hat were you wearing in the debate? Were you a scientist or an apologist against Christianity?
If the latter… what authority do you speak with…Do you think science can really disprove God?
So now you are suggesting that it was a stage managed set-up that Hunt and Meyer fell into. I really expected better from you and quite sad to see this level of virtue signalling from someone who claims that he wishes to build bridges.
I’m seeing a high rate of ad hominem and insults from you. Please stop.
This is not virtue signalling. Do you think this was a balanced audience? Do you this was a fair exchange with equal time to all participants? Do think that Hunt is equally skilled at public debate as Meyer? Do you think this is how scientific debates are adjudicated?
Hi Ashwin,
My comment was tongue-in-cheek, as it were. The quip about Celtics fans should have been a giveaway. Maybe I should have said something about the crowd instantly becoming Royal Challengers fans.
@theman8469, if we all take a deep breath … and be assured that nobody dies in these chat rooms … we can drop the intensity level down a notch or two.
A post was split to a new topic: Hunt’s 2003 Critique of Axe
Enough with the hockey team references! 
Ok thanks …Got it…
Some days, one can be thankful for this electronic venue in which ideas can be shared and discussed. Not because they are profitable, but rather, that some poor tree did not need to die in order for it to be printed instead.
Important, but highly technical points. Fundamentally important for the logic of Meyer’s case, but this exchange was not about logic. It was a performance with the crowds, and you had a scripted role, that you played to the tee.
It does count, but not rhetorically. What we need to do is get a transcript of the exchange so it can be quoted. However, the goal should have never been to convince them to renouncer Christianity. The goal should be to renounce bad arguments, false claims, and enter into the mystery of science.
You might actually have made progress towards this the next day…The Real Story of the Hunt and Meyer Exchange. If that public debate was the price of entry, you might have made a good trade.
@art I’m not precisely saying you lost. I’m rather saying we do not expect good scientists to win in contexts like this. Popularism is the enemy of good science, and public debates are pure populism.
For one reason, some sort of engagement/debate helps to prepare for important events. The Dover Trial was such a debacle for ID because a community of scientists had been debating anti-evolutionists for many years, and had pretty much packaged the rebuttals to ID arguments into forms that could be easily presented.
After reading this thread, I’m unable to conclude whether I should watch this video or not 
But I am interested to see Dr. Matheson!