Comments on: Then a Miracle Occurs

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:12:17 +0000

I was watching the entire debate on youtub, and I must say that I was very disappointed with the performance of Dr.Shermer. I thought at first that this debate will finally show that creationists are nothing but a bunch of idiots, which I still think that they are. However, what disappointed me was that Hovind with his well-put together nonsense actually won this debate.I agree that people who have PhDs in science especially in biology, geology, paleontology should know how to teach properly the theory of evolution to those who do not understand it at all.Therefore, should we debate creationists? I say yes, that we should, but only then when we are fully prepared to teach and explain the theory to those like Hovind and only then destroy them with empirical facts about science and everything that there is in science.I am a scientist myself.However, what I dislike about scientists is their ignorance towards others.If we were more open to each other and to those who ask us verious questions regarding either our research or science in general then we would win the battle.What I see in almost all of the scientists that I have encountered is that they are cold, not responsive.I’ve met only a few who I consider great people.I struggled to get where I am right now to do what I love to do the most, but a lot of doors shut before me and I had to find the right doors that would open for me and who ever was on the other side of the doors would then invite me.I think that we have to be more open and welcome everyone, make people interested with our research with our findings and do not pretend that we are big scientists who would not want to talk to others or look down on them.If we change our attitude and learn how to present science and the theory of evolution the right way then only then we will win.We need to make changes, otherwise people like Hovind who are without proper science education and with their presented nonsense would not win over someone who has PhD.

By: Trev

Trev — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:57:54 +0000

I enjoyed the debate between you and Dr. Hovind. I am an Old Earth Creationist, but I must say that you did an amazing job as a public speaker and as a defender of evolution. Out of all of Hovind’s debates, I enjoyed your guys’ the most. I have to point out one flaw in your commentary though. I watched the debate and you specifically said that an ATHEIST should be referred to as a bright. On your commentary you said that Hovind sad that “Scientists should not be called brights.” Also, I disagree with your assertion that you won the debate intellectually (granted victory in a debate context is subjective). Hovind did not simply say that the best evidence for creation is the lak of evidence for the contrary. He said that, but then he pointed to obvious complexity and Romans 1. Overall, Hovind gracefully dismantled your points and you failed to do so with his points.

By: Dr. Gonzo

Dr. Gonzo — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:00:03 +0000

You can protest all you want, Michael, but the simple fact is that Kent Hovind put you to shame in this debate.

By: Jerry Dubats

Jerry Dubats — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:08:57 +0000

Mr. Shermer:

A miralce happened with roof that tells of our creators untold story. I am the type of person if I saw a U F O
I would not tell anyone. But because it was God I have a commitment in getting His story made known. I wrote a self p;ublished book but no one knows about it. So I made a working script for a film. The film would generate more interest then the filmTHE PASSION OF CHRIST. That film grossed over 400 million.
The book Dinosaurs God and Nature by Jerry Dubats can be found in the google books search by keying in my name. Alot of the story can be found.
My condern is to find a film studio to do this film project. I will be glade to answer any questions.

Regards :

Jerry Dubats

email perkins329@aolcom
phone 941 923-1852

PS The story makes the connections to the Bible that only asupreme creator could do.

By: Shawn Miller

Shawn Miller — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:22:30 +0000

I was at this debate in Irvine, CA. Yes, there were mostly Christians at this debate, which should be encouraging to Michael, since that is who he is trying to persuade. From an unbiased viewpoint, Kent Hovind clearly won the debate. Michael did show some evidence for evolution, but the evidence he presented was antiquated and outdated, and Kent Hovind easily defended the evidence.

(I understand if you don’t post this comment. Only presenting one side proves that scientists are suppressing opposing theories to evolutions).

By: Sam Cross

Sam Cross — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:17:41 +0000

Many earlier scientists believed in God and creationism and it did not hinder their investigative nature nor were they bound by onlookers because the science had not branched into a cohesive philosophy but the arguments now packaged together with ideas that border on philosophy rather than concrete expressions. If you fight philosophy you must use philosophy. And even if your facts appear right and the earth is older than thought, then does the age of the rocks and laws change the biological story and are they equal or could they be contrary so that man should seem to find an answer while being led astray simply so he can satisfy his investigative mind. Do the laws of your childhood apply now or have some not changed. Does your bodies cells have a biological clockwork and the cell growth change with the time. What about the world’s clock. I don not know these answers being ignorant but these are real ideas which lurk outside science probably. Hovind may be wrong, but as a negative crier of the coming storm, his truth is closer than the bright ones who are liars and proud in their lie. How off the mark they must be.

By: david andrew

david andrew — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:33:50 +0000

Thank you for your intellectual honesty, your uncompromising pursuit of scientific progress and your unremitting logic.

By: Skeptic

Skeptic — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:36:50 +0000

I’ve got a solution, which I’ve seen on a cartoon on the internet (I wish I could remember its name right now).

Debating creationists means they get respect they don’t deserve?

Not debating them means they can claim you’re a coward?

DEBATE IN A CLOWN SUIT! Answer all of their points that way, without giving anybody the idea you take them seriously.

By: James R. FitzGerald

James R. FitzGerald — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:23:22 +0000

Mr. Shermer,

As a one-time “fence-sitter” I applaud your work. I’m a regular visitor to your websites, have watched your debates on youtube and am the proud owner of your book ‘Why People Believe Weird Things’. In my opinion you do a wonderful public service. You obviously are passionate about your work but you seem to maintain a certain humility which I think is to be admired. You may not change the minds of the “true-believers” but I feel certain that many people are off the fence because of your dedication.

By: Conrado Estol

Conrado Estol — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:40:30 +0000

Good for you!

I enjoyed reading about the debate (and learning of the clever – intelligent, rather – Harris cartoon!) and wholly agree that “they” should not be given the opportunity of debating a serious, intelligent, well-informed person.

Keep up the good work!

Conrado Estol (out of Buenos Aires, Argentina, of all places!)