Nice Video…

I love this guys English voice, but his argument is a little shaky. Basically he does smoke and mirrors while never using any actual points; all the time attacking religions wrongdoings. I also noticed he never answered the attacks on evolution he only dismissed them. 

The Rabbi is a fallacious debater, but he at least has some sort of argument. I hate how he shouts when he argues. Maybe one day he will laugh and remember the day

I think they both sucked and hopefully no one will become religious or an atheist based on this crud. 

Also the English guy totally made up the stuff about the court. The guy he quotes has a serious problem with Judaism. Read his stuff it actually gets kind of funny.

To Linda (Feb. 23): You write “And I give Rabbi Boteach credit for tackling one of the most debated scientific theories in an intelligent manner, quoting several reputable scientists...”

One of the major problems for Boteach (and he had many) was that yes, he quoted reputable scientists, but the quotes were taken out of context, or distorted (intentionally or not, I don’t know), or simply incorrect.

As for Hitchens not offering any arguments to back his case: I was surprised to read this in your comment; I thought Hitch’s arguments were rational and logically sound. Besides, even if he had not presented a case at all, as he said early on, the onus of proof was on Boteach, not him.

“I have trouble listening to extremists...Only by working together can we find a middle path, which is where the majority shall always be found.” By Martin Eile at February 10, 2008, 1:29pm

No, because one would not try to find a middle path between a spherical Earth and a flat Earth. As with this debate, one side is dealing with reality and facts, while the other is dealing in fantasy and delusion. The majority is not always correct, and the middle is not necessarily the place one wants to be on issues. Truth, the Sublime is is the best course.

To this fact and this alone, a fact which Hitchens didn’t dare try and contest.

Simply put, “Mathematically there is not enough time to run all the possible combinations for genetic trial and error in between the evolution of lower organisms and mankind. “There is no scientific evidence to prove that argument”. Furthermore it takes more faith to believe that evidence will be found to support such a claim than to believe in the G_d how made it so.
One can only conclude that both sides require faith to believe their claims. As ironic as it seems those of us who believe in a creator, believe that “in time” G_d will reveal his truths to all… figure!
Thank you again for the great food for thought.

what did he google Evolution or something? I thought this was a debate about the existence of God.
Boteach seemed ridiculously unprepared for this debate, making it almost effortless for Hitchens to obliterate his argument.

Erik, that is because Hitchens does not need to contest it.
Dawkins already discussed this argument in the God Delusion in his discussion on the creation of the universe. If believers assume that god created the universe because complex things can only be created by more complex things, then that means that, even though the chance that the universe emerged without a god is very small, the chance that it emerged with a god is even smaller. After all, you’d need a more complex thing than the universe to create the universe, and therefore the chance that a god existed that could have created the universe, is always smaller than the chance that the universe emerged by itself.

In the case of evolution, the problem isn’t exactly much different.

I felt that the true debate on the existence of God, which actually popped up every now and then, was overcast by unnecessary instances of character assassination, ego posturing, sarcastic quips, pettiness, and insults. I had hoped to watch this to gain some insight or a new perspective on the subject, or to even walk away with great respect for these men, however I ended up watching it with a box of popcorn, the surround sound cranked way up, and my money on the underdog. What ever happened to true debate, light in it’s tone and serious in it’s matter.