Ok, I'm coining a new oxymoron now before anyone else does. It was in the articles about Kirk Cameron...
'religious awakening'
In all seriousness, how are these guys going to debate 'scientifically'. They would even have the education or understanding to get some of the arguments thrown at them. Is there going to be a moderator? A score? A winner? Because if it's a loose debate, I know EXACTLY how it's going to go.
'Uhmm but Kirk, that isn't a scientific point, that's on hypothesis, conjecture, and circumstantial evidence.'
'We can agree to disagree if you dont' feel that way,'
But that's not even a valid point, I mean erg ARGHHH!'