Feedback on CMI–Australia vs Skeptics

CMI–Australia accepted an invitation for a written ‘mini-debate’ with the Australian Skeptics on the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) weblog of Margo Kingston (a well-known Australian journalist) in June. This was an exciting opportunity to get the message out to many thousands of secular folk. To read the debate transcripts and judge for yourself, go to our information page on this event.

Congratulations to the [CMI] team on your efforts in the Sydney Morning Herald debate. Your submissions left the sceptics for dead. Willis showed both his contempt for creationists, and the paucity of substance in the evolutionary side, by wasting words enumerating his gleanings from a book on debating. Hope you can publish the suggested booklet. Much very interesting information appeared on the web diary, and it was extremely interesting to see the bigotted attitudes of many of the evolutionists, and their throw-away arguments and obfuscations. The best they could do near the end was criticize Jonathan for being "boorish". I think the creationists won as clearly there as in the published debate. Congratulations again.

—Gordon Howard, Australia

Wow, thats all I really have to say after reading that debate between [CMI] and the Australian Skeptics via the Australian newspaper. If ever there was a clear cut victor in any debate this would be the one. I knew that a skeptics argument is usually weak, but when you have those carrying the title of Dr. you would assume a little more then hand waving coupled with cliche sayings. There was no substance to their argument. So congradulations to those who took part in the debate, it would have been better for the skeptics if the debat never happened, but at least now their intellectual dishonesty is a little bit more evident to the general public.

—David, Canada

I wanted to commend the [CMI] Australia team on a job well done in that debate with the Skeptics.

[CMI] clearly won the debate. It seemed like the Skeptics just threw their hands up at the end of their 3^rd essay and declared an atheistic jihad on the Bible and Christianity because their arguments had failed.

One thing I noticed was that the Skeptics refused to acknowledge or even attempt to refute the large number of scientific evidences [CMI] presented for the smaller age of the earth (for example the earth's magnetic field, helium levels, etc). Instead they proclaimed that [CMI] had not presented any evidence. Any fool can see this claim was false — there was an entire section labeled “The Age of Things” with about a dozen evidences with links. I couldn't figure out why the Skeptics were so desparate to claim [CMI] had not presented evidence. One very insightful section of [CMI's] posting revealed the answer, however:

"Its silly when some, including Gould and the NAS (USA), claim that creation is not scientific because its not falsifiable or testable, then turn around and claim that creationist claims have been examined (i.e. tested) and proven false (i.e. falsified)."

They don't want to even acknowlege the creationist arguments because as soon as they do, they have undermined their entire position that creationism is not science because it cannot be falsified. That is why the Skeptics refused to offer a single refutation to the evidence [CMI] presented for a 6000 year old earth (young earth is the wrong expression, don't you think?).

Anyway, keep up the good work, and we'll keep praying for the ministry of [CMI].

—Benjamin Guptill, USA

I read with great interest the essay debate and I tried to be objective. However, the very things that the skeptics accuse creationist of, they do. Talk about obfuscation.

It is maddening for me to read their arguements.

They claim injury over ad hominem attacks, that is the most ridiculous pandering in the whole essay, didn't they read what they wrote?

I personally believe that some people will not change, no matter how much evidence they have. While the arguements are for the undecided, I feel like I am watching an arguement between a parent and and a two year old.

Sorry for the rant, I feel another one coming on. I could go on and on and on.

One could argue the points for 13.7 billion years from today, and the Australian skeptics would never come around.

—Henry Nichols, USA

I just read the debate of [CMI] with the Australian skeptics (lower case s on purpose). More accurately I read the contributions by [CMI] and tried not to gag when I read the skeptics reply. Thank you so very much for having the scientific expertise, the willingness to debate, and the Christian love to tolerate the abuse you had to take for your speaking the truth from the Bible. [CMI] is the first web site I look at each time I go surfing because of your dedication to science and to the truth of the Bible.

—Dean Carpenter, M.D., USA