The atheist side proved their own point about ‘gaps’ when they continually explained the gaps by ‘science may/or will explain someday’ or by the multi-universe guess, etc.

The atheist position reminds me of the geocentric model of the solar system.  Men’s minds came up with all kinds of possible models to ‘prove’ what was seen, but as good as the models seemed to be, they could never correctly answer the real question because of the incorrect presupposition the ‘geocentric’ model was based upon.

I’d like these kinds of debates start with a definition of science.  Isn’t science the gathering of information by observation?  Applied science using the info to ... (whatever).  If this is the case, science can’t happen without a scientist (someone observing, someone applying).  Therefore, science can never give answers, but can only be interpreted.  As one man said, world views dictate conclusions.  Starting from the wrong presupposition will never get correct answers no matter how much faith is applied.

AndrV, the panelists probably hold a world view that differs from yours, and which one is right can be discussed, but you have no grounds for claiming they are insincere. How would you ever know if they were? I suppose you don’t know them personally.

The debate is a very good one and very “clean” when compared to John’s debates with Dawkins or Hitchens, and the panelists are all well educated. I recommend it.

I thank God for Lennox.
You do such a big favour to these men when entering into debate with them.
If only they were sincere.
May God be with you.