Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Esquilax]

So you can't find a place in the debate transcript where Craig did not know what Carroll was talking about. LOL, and you love to start the "oh how we hate WLC and here's why" threads and you can't come up with an example!! 

I can. Why can't you?

My favorite moment in that debate, and the one most emblematic of the issue you're trying to pretend doesn't exist in order to prematurely do your touchdown dance, is when Craig goes up and says that the universe had a beginning, and that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem supports this view. Carroll responds not only by explaining what the theorem actually means (and having read it myself, I can say that yes, Craig severely mischaracterizes it because, yes, he doesn't know what he's talking about) but by bringing in Alan Guth himself, one of the writers of the paper, to set the record straight and state that his work does not indicate what Craig asserts it does, and that he himself believes the universe is most likely eternal. Craig, having been proven wrong but unable to admit this, dismisses Guth's statements as just his personal opinion. So not only does Craig clearly not know what he's on about, he's also employing a dishonest double standard: when Guth's work appears to comport with what he already believes, Craig considers Guth to be an adequate source. When Guth's work does not do this, then it doesn't matter what he thinks.

In fact, here's a six-and-a-half minute compilation of moments where Craig shows he doesn't know the science, and Carroll has to correct him... only for Craig to not give up his bullshit, even when corrected by an actual scientist:





Now, you clearly place a lot of credence on academics and degrees, since you bring up Craig's so emphatically: given this, surely you recognize Carroll's clear advantage in discussing physics and cosmology, since Carroll is himself a PhD with more than 20 years of experience in that field? And since you seem to accept that trained professionals in the field know more about that field, wouldn't you then have to admit that Craig's refusal to give up his flawed conceptualizations of the science, even when corrected by an actual scientist in that area, is profoundly bad form?