I'm posting this debate not because you should watch it all (although by all means do), but because of the ridiculous hypocritical argument the creationist employs. I'll talk you through it...
At 2:59, he claims that he knows many scientists that believe in creation, even going so far as to say he has 'lists of scientists' that agree with him - a clear claim to authority. If these scientists believe it, then there must be merit to it. Argument from authority is clearly good.
Then at 5:36, the host says that the vast majority of scientists accept evolution, and the creationist argues against this by stating that 'the majority doesn't decide what's right, what's right is right'. OK, I see, so argument from authority is bad?
But then, straight after this at 6:30, he again claims that he can 'come up with lists of hundreds of scientists' that agree with him. Wait, so this argument is good again?
6:46 The host again says that almost all science departments accept evolution. Creationist: 'That doesn't mean it's right'. Now it's bad again. This is confusing!
11:44 Finally, when the creationist is asked if the list he is talking about is the Discovery Institute list, the response is 'that's only one of many' and he proceeds to show three pages of biologists that agree with him. Not one, not two, but three whole pages. I imagine you can fit a lot of names onto three pages. And they are biologists too! So argument from authority is definitely good.
Of course when asked, the evolutionist states at 11:29 that the majority support evolution because the data supports it and rightly rejects the argument from authority. Plain, simple and consistent.
Finally, a sporting event I can get into
5 hours ago