She says we are constantly changing. Where is the change occurring? If we are constantly changing, why do we look like the paintings and sculptures of human beings from the distant past. The operative word is constantly. What arrogant bluffing and posturing. They say every living creature is a transitional form while admitting that there are no fossils showing one kind transitioning into another kind. Then she blabs on about mutations, etc. Transitioning is believed without evidence.
@luvmusic09 I'm a creationist and a christian, but what you said at the start there is not a good argument ;/. Evolutionists make it very clear that the constant changes are noticeable after millions of years, not a couple of thousand. Again I believe that evolution is illogical, but I just wanted to point out that what you said was not a fair argument...
Using your argument, then we should be able to see ourselves getting taller everyday because we grow constantly (which we don't). Takes time.
Dealing with Crocoduck-Bananaman-Cameron is almost too much to absorb. It is an overload of ignorance and nonsense from just one poorly-evolved human being.
There is another YouTuber who has already done a terrific job of replying to Kirk. So, I will defer to her in her YouTube video:
@RCSVirginia Even with EVOLUTION Evidence. youcan never proof theres NO GOD. And you WILL go to Hell if you dont repent. thats a fact. Weather you believe it or not.
what about a platypus?a living link between mammal,bird,and reptile(venom glands)its right in front of you.how about a tadpole turning from basically a fish to an air breathing creature?
Simple cell? An oxymoron! Cells are vastly complicated! You would have to be extremly simple to think that cells are simple. lol. Even proteins are complex!
on kelly's part....she shouldnt be so attitudy when kirk and ray are being so nice with soft answers. A gift from God is peace. thats what kirk and ray have. kelly is being attitudy and looking for claps and responses from the audiences, kirk and ray are not. read Proverbs 15:1. this is a good example of not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Every knee will bow and tongue confess romans 14:11
@BFFFL16 coming into a debate without having any clue how evolution works is, while predictable since it is being interpreted by a creationist, still annoying to the evolutionist who is explaining it.
Basically their view on evolution is: I believe is micro evolution but not macro evolution. If you do not understand the terms, they are basically saying: I believe in the minute hand of the clock, but not the hour hand.
It is that rediculeus. I believe in centimeters, but not kilometers. I believe in milli liters, but not gallons. It's all the same thing.
This is sooooo funny. There are animals everywhere that have different parts that they don't even use anymore! I don't think Kirk and that other wack-a-do did ANY research in the matter, they were just gonna trust in "god" to make it all happen. "No one's seen it happen"? Ofcoarse not! It takes millions of billions of years for something to reform! And to say there is no proof! Go to museums and they will show u the evolving species peice by peice! Idiots.
the fact of evolution vs the myth of creation is always an entertaining debate. But I would have preferred to see a conversation between creationist (or as Richard Dawkins would say, 'History Denier') and a Scientist who both knew and read the theory of evolution.
Kirk Cameron doesn't know anything about evolution, if he did he would know that mammals are NOT descended from frogs. their common ancestors may have been amphibian, but you would most certainly not call them frogs.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis,Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
@thre3eplus But, I know what you are saying; Will I just take anything I read or hear at face value; right or wrong and teach it to my kids, simply because some person who claims to be a Christain says it is right? No. The Bible also says; The sheep know the Master's voice, I test everything I read and hear by the Spirit of God and by the Word of God and if it rings true to the truth I know then I believe. But I trust the Bible completely, The Old King James, anyway.
@Brookesk1977 Ok, but how do you explain people, equally devout, who tested their "truths" with equal methods, using the same book as the litmus test, and came to the conclusion that torturing people is what god wants, and hating Jews is demanded by god, and torturing them, lest they denounce their faith, is a fine christian thing to do. What does the bible have to say about lying to children? Should I teach my child to fear an ivisible ogre in the sky?
@thre3eplus In the Bible there is no mention of anyone who truly belongs to Christ torturing anyone, on the contrary, believers in Christ were tortured by non-believers and told to renounce their beliefs and there God or die. So if a man says that God told him to murder or torture or hate then he is a liar or he is deceived and he does not belong to God no matter what he says.
@Brookesk1977 Hey, what's your name anyway. I'm Tom. Are you a politician? Because you can't seem to answer a simple question. Is the torture perpetrated by the Romans on your christian brethren different than the torture perpatrated by your christian brethren on the Jews? If not, then how is it that you gleen different conclusions from the same bible and think that your interpretation is the correct one? What is the comparison that makes yours right and their's wrong? R U an abortionist killer?
@thre3eplus My name is Brooke, good to meet you. No I'm not a politician, lol. I hate politics. Like I have said before; I don't know much about history, but...OK, I'm not saying that "my Christian brethren are above torturing people, they are still human after all, and make mistakes, but if they did I hope they saw the error of their ways and asked God for forgiveness, because like I also said GOD does not condone those things. He never said it was OK to torture or brutalize anyone.
@thre3eplus I'm trying to give you more in way of answers but this YouTube is impossible, it keeps on wanting me to prove I'm human with codes and and won't let me make more than one post without signing off and signing back on again, sorry about that. :)
@Brookesk1977 Hey listen. You're a fine person.No doubt of that.But I keep asking you about what to tell kids, and what the bible has to say about lying, and how you can tell whether something is truth or not. You say that you just know, because you have a special connections.I say that that's what your brethren said also during the Inquisitions, yet look at what all they did. There must be a better way to tell you speak truth to kids or not. Do you tell them that water can be turned into wine?
@thre3eplus Well, hey, thanks for that, you sound like a decent guy and it has been fun debating you like this, I don't usually like debates. In general the Bible tells us not to lie, it is one of the Commandments. And the Bible says not to make little children stumble, figureitively, and not to decieve them. The difference between people who are truly connected to God and those who are not is that the liars do dispicable things in the name of God and say he told then to do it.
@thre3eplus I myself haven't seen anyone turn water to wine and I won't tell my kids that I have,but I'll tell them what the Bible says.Actually I've never seen any major miraculous things such as;major illnesses or injuries being healed on the spot or someone being raised from the dead,but I've seem many little personal miracles in my own life.That's what gives me certianty in what I believe.Like I said it's personal and God knows what touches each of us,what touches one may not touch another..
@Brookesk1977 Well, that's fine. What else can it be but fine? This whole thing strated when you claimed that merely believing something second hand is the same as knowing it, and therefore it is sufficient to vouch for something. I tried to tell you with my questions that that is a dengerous attitude, because that locks out your god given 100% free moral agency. But. . . that's cool. You're a fine man, to be sure, but you might think on what I said even so.
@thre3eplus Ok, you needn't shout at me. lol. They did prove it for themselves with their belief because the Bible says it and they believe the Bible. The apostle John was an eye witness to that event and wrote it down to let people know about it. If you choose not to believe the Bible that is your choice, but I believe every word of it. And at the end of my life, if I happen to be wrong, then I will have lived in sure and certain hope for a glorious afterlife with my Lord and I will die happy.
@Brookesk1977 All right. If I read a 15th century book that describes proper christian behavior, such as the appeasement of god that derives from witch burning, and Jew tormenting (for being chirst killers), and I proceed to tell my children that these are proper christian behaviors, and when somebody calls me on it I say, "hey I say these things to my children because I believe the book from which they came, then ought I be excused?Where is the limit to where that excuse is no longer operable?
@thre3eplus I'm not very good at most histories, it was one of my weakest subjects in school. So I've never read any history book about witch burning, regardless, I don't believe that is ok. God does not condone witch burning or any other evil thing that a man does to another. God says; Vengence is Mine; I will repay. Now, I used to believe whole heartedly in the death penalty, but as I have grown in my relationship with the Lord I've become more uncertain about that...
@thre3eplus ...because as long as God allows a person to live there is stll a chance that they may repent of any wrong they have done and that they may in the end turn to God and be saved, and i want that more than anything, and God wants that more then I do. The Bible says; It is not God's will that anyone should perish. He wants all to come to repentance and to belong to Him, He loves every single one of us; the lost also. But God is not going to force Himself on anyone if they don't want Him
@thre3eplus Yes they can "personally" vouch for what they claim. They can't make anyone else believe what they are saying. Belief is a personal choice. A relationship with God is a very personal thing and you can only experience Him if your heart is open to Him. If a person has determinedly hardened their heart to God, over and over, as so many people have, they may eventually lose their ability to experience God. I have personally experienced God myself, He has made Himself very real to he.
Does anyone notice that woman's attitude, she has got such an ugly one, while Kirk and his partner are trying to explain in a calm and loving way. That should tell you something. So if there is no God I should be as ugly in my attitude as she is. I am so glad there is a God so that He can teach me to walk in His ways and teach me to to approach people, even people who disagree with me, in a calm and loving manner.
What these people desire is personal homeostasis. They are not searchers, and they have no need or desire to enlarge the human truth treasury, despite the biblical admonition, "search and ye shall find." I knda feel sorry for them, especially when they open their mouths to speak. However, we must not forget that if what they believe brings them peace, then why not?
@dopanan Woah, we still do not understand gravity completely. And although I am a novice at quantum mechanics, I do know that the jury is still out on the subject. Einsteins ideas don't mix well with the pioneer paradox, casimir effect and other things - so they are at best inconsistent with quantum theory. The graviton still works with the Standard Model, so the hunt still continues. I may not be a particle physicist, but this line of reasoning does little to help in this context....
@dopanan oops! Maybe you should pay attention as well - lol. READ what I wrote. I said, and I quote "You will be hard pressed to find someone who USES Pre-Darwinian evolutionary thought as a REFERENT..."
She is so ignorant...lol "Even if there were no fossils, no transitional forms..." - The very fabric of Evolution is based on the fossil record. What an idiot!
@Wunji1 No it isn't. A larger portion of evolution has to do with genetics. Smaller portions have to do with anthropology and cosmology. It isn't all about the fossils. You're the ignorant one.
@HipRockInc Pay attention. I said the very fabric of Evolution is "based" on the fossil record. I didn't say all of Evolution. The foundation of your precious theory is based on the work of Darwin, an amateur geologist. He was neither a cosmologist, nor a geneticist. Perhaps you were unaware of this?
@HipRockInc I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere. I'm sure you will get to it soon. However, tracing evolutionary thought back to the time of the Greeks, or even to a time nearer Darwin himself carries no weight within the context of the debate in the video. You will be hard pressed to find someone who uses Pre-Darwinian evolutionary thought as a referent...
@Wunji1 I'm not really talking about pre-Darwin so much as I am talking about post-Darwin. Charles Darwin is not the lynchpin that holds evolutionary theory together. Evolution is a 150 year old scientific theory. You think that maybe someone did some work on it during that time?
If you missed the point, that is your problem. Evolution is not reliant on the fossil record. Indeed if there were no fossil record, there would still be a mountain of evidence.
@HipRockInc Ok, we will all wait to hear about this "mountain of evidence" outside the fossil record or any geological data that would server to glue evolutionary theory together. Take as many posts, and as much time as you need. I'm always eager to learn more...
hahahahahaha, I don't think Kirk understands evolution at all. He might want to study a bit more on the subject. Maybe even talk to some biologists. Hell, if he has Skype I would gladly sit down and teach him about it. If anyone knows how to get in touch with him, let me know, I would gladly help him out.
Kirk is a classic example of what "religious indoctrination" does to a person. It warps the mind, places limits on God (the spirit or energy) and completely shuts a person down to anything else but what is written in your holy manual. Smh!
Kirk is right on some of his points but so are the Atheists. Kirk is attempting to convert people to his religion, Christianity because his bible teaches him that he need to "save souls". Christians need to realize that not everyone is going to become a Christian & that doesn't make them wrong. Use your faith for your own life Kirk. Love people where they are & be persuaded about Jesus in your own mind. Obviously you are having doubts.
Energy (spirit or God) can transition into any form without limit because energy is what gives any form of existence life. Darwin had it right when he said we are constantly evolving. Evolution is not limited to monkeys. We have the ability to evolve in our mind, body and lives. It's not hard to believe that monkeys evolved into the human race. The human race is just one of many forms of existence. The energy (spirit or god-mind) is highly intelligent.
I believe in both evolution and creation. You can't have one without the other. I believe that scientifically we are human beings encased over an energy form that some call God, others call spirit. Energy (spirit or God) can't be seen in it's pure form but it can been seen in a form of transition, such as a human, animal, plant, sun, trees, etc. Spiritually speaking the energy that resides inside of us is constantly creating our life experiences such as health, wealth, peace, happiness, etc.
Professor Farnsworth proved this on Futurama There are literally dozens of transitional fossils that are lready know. Cameron is just woefully ignorant or he is dangerously delusionary.
Correct, No really, Kirk is correct, Everything that ever lived was a complete species. Nothing was ever trying to change into something else. That is why there are no '' missing links''. Then he goes on to say scientists are looking for a Crocoduck. Proving he doesn't understand what he is talking about.
There are many 'transitional fossils'', ones who share traits of different kinds of animals. ie. Dinosaurs with feathers.
@dannywizz You don't seem to know how evolution work either. Humans and Chimps were the same animal 10 million years ago, we are different species now.
@thewayofthemaster The bacteria change species every time they get a little more intricate, slightly more complicated. There is no physically visible change therefore we don't change the whole species from every multiplication.
@thewayofthemaster I think you have a misunderstanding of evolution. If you accept microevolution, then why can't you accept macroevolution? Do you think things just "stop" evolving after a while?
@jeremy193 Microevolution is like jumping as high as you can over and over. Macroevolution is the claim that given enough time, your jumping will get you to the moon. Do species do not change species. They only vary within their kind.
@thewayofthemaster Your analogy is fallacious. You claim with microevolution, you "fall back down" to where you were. This is just off the top of my head, but I think, in my opinion, a better way of explain it would be a never ending stairway.
@thewayofthemaster Your obviously an idoit...btw the "likes" in this video is becasue they got owend, if you look in the first video where the two idoits were talking, they got disliked like hell, anyways im trying to say, "creation" is a losing battle.
@dec4dence.. evolution doesn't teach you how to live you idiot..... it doesn't try to make your feel special by telling you how much it loves you and how happy you will be for eternity if you obey it. ....it's like physics or chemistry...it's just a science. Get your head out of your religious @ss for a minute and think for yourself.
i think its silly to say we dont know how it happened therefore my book of magic and my particular brand of god must exist. it doestn work that way. you cant rey on science one minute and magic to fill in the spaces you dont understand.
@TheBbg83 Don´t believe every piece of s*** out there... If an evolutionist claims there are no transitional fossils, it may be to point out that every single fossil represents a species in its own right, that is, there is no such thing as an ape-human, rather an australopithecus...
Kirk thinks if an animal is fully formed it can't be a transitional animal. He is wrong, all transitional animals are fully formed. Kirk thinks that genomes contain digital information. This is false. Genomes contain information but it is not digital information. Evolution is not an accidental process as Kirk claims. It is an orderly process where small mutations are either helpful to survival, unhelpful to survival, or a hinderance to survival.
These people make me want to scream they are so ill informed. Cameron clearly lacks a basic understanding of what evolution is. Evolution is a progressional process taking billions of years to create any significant change and evolution can't be obviously seen in the individual but over thousands of generation. You won't get an obvious transitional form, such as the crocodile duck(!), because one generation will not produce that much variation.
ok im not shure but digital info is a series of zeros and ones that are very specific to their perpouse. witch if im not mistaken is a pattern. BOO YA!! 6th grade science beats that argument.
As pointed out, even if we didn't have 1 transitional form, it wouldn't matter because we have so much evidence in the form of biology and genetics, it takes a true blind eye to deny it all. Most people don't seem to understand what a 'transitional form" is and what it implies, but talkorigins has a great and vast list of transitionals for anyone to look at in chronological order, with characteritics, etc...The info is out there, people just have to be honest and look at it.
Kirk is only partly right about DNA. Yeah, it does have the "instructions" on how to make a nose, stomach teeth, ect. But it also has the "instructions" on how to make vitamin C, tails, lay eggs, make gills, claws, nictilating eyelids, scales, ect.
The funny thing is that we ONLY have the genes we should have according to common descent. If we had genes from creatures that werent part of our specific lineage, for example the genes to develop feathers, then evolution would be wrong.
I completely disagree with Kirk on the faith matter, because his an idiot! Hmm, come on, he is, and you know it. Yet I like him as an actor :) I think he's a good/creative person inside!
Here are three good reason to not believe in GOD. 1. There is no super deity to save the earth and make it right. We would have to taking responsibility for our actions on nature, therefore nature and this earth will have grater value. 2. This is the only life you are ever going to have. There will be no after life and live becomes more valuable and greater morality and ethics would result. 3. There will be no need to kill someone because his god was different than yours. No need for War.
If there was no god than this life would have greater value since this is the only life one will ever have. This is why in countries that have less violence there are more atheist.
This is totally ridiculous, how frustrating must it not be to "debate" someone at the level of the banana man and Kirk Cameron seriously these guys are so embaressing words can not describe it.
@TheBakor Why? She is saying that there is mathematical data and carbon data to support it. You don't actually need the fossils. We know how far it is to Pluto,no one has ever been there but we have mathematical proof to support how many miles it is to get there, we also no how long it would take to get there at a certain speed. It's also like convicting someone of murder in court even though no one saw the murder enough evidence can convict someone. Is that too hard to understand for your brain
Both world views presented here are false. The notion that an actively creating theistic god and a universe which is a result of mindless random events are both nonsensical. An unknown, undefined, non-personal, intelligent agent(s) who set the initial conditions of the universe which then grew and evolved on its own according to those conditions is the more logical position and which is the best interpretation of modern science.
Along the last 50 years, various transitional fossil have been found. These fill the space between species. The problem is, for creasionists, each new step can be seen as a totally different species (God-designed offcourse), and now "there's not one but two gaps to be explained".
Eventually, there will be so much transitional fossils that creationists will have to pray to have been born on the Middle Ages.
@lequi7 I love this "Eventually, there will be so much transitional fossils that creationists will have to pray to have been born on the Middle Ages." Thank you.
@lequi7 Odd the people who say these are not true transitional fossils are evolutionists. They have a entire site dedicated to evolutionists being quoted saying this.
@glewis2edu24 Oh grow some tougher skin do you know how irritating it is to half to explain over and over again to creationist the evidence for evolution to have them just stick there fingers in there ears.Maybe the creationist should know the facts before they get into a debate instead of spending there whole time trying to disprove the evidence.Perfectly good question "How can you deny that?" because to argue the facts because it doesn't support your theory is an argument from ignorance.
if god was truly all loving all powerful "sins" wouldnt exist, people wouldn't be born gay or with no conscience. poverty would not exist etc... ahhh rant over. we should just live our lives rather then being preached at to live our lives in a certain way. i'm a good person i don't harm others i do things as morally abiding as i can, yet i'm bisexual, so i'm def going to hell... seriously i couldn't give a damn!
haha i love it when people debate, personally i'm no christian, neither am i a die hard athiest, however science does seem to show more evidence for the existence of no god then religion does for the existence of god. my christian friend is always going on about how evolution etc is illogical, i find it hard finding any logic in a god that created our world in 6 days?. or the stoning to death of adulterers, homosexuality being a sin and so forth.
@cacox@pburto That lederereddy guy seems like he sniffed a few lines of coke & decided to take on every person on this page who posted in favor of evolution at once. I've answered claims like his a 100 times over & I'm frankly tired of it. It's tiresome explaining the mechanisms of evolution & abiogenesis with a 500 character limit. Still, his unsubtle assault on the intellect has a deranged ring to it. I've been in the field of Psychology long enough to recognize delusional when I see it.
@pburto Every form is transitional and fully formed is a contradiction when you run that test far enough back & deep enough into the problem. There's no way to reconcile the miriads of problems in the reality of that actually happening. You guys think Christianity is built on faith? What do you call your beliefs, science? Haha, not hardly! I call it desperate to believe anything as long as it's not God! Nothing is less scientific then claiming all life evolved from one cell. That be ignorance =|
@pburto All they are ever finding is fossils of whole creatures. They don't even know anything more than that creature was buried and became fossilized by some catastrophic event. You have been fed a line and by faith you believe it. This cleaver line about every fully formed creature is transitional isn't science because we all know what transitional species really means and it's not recorded in the fossil record just like macro isn't in biology. With nothing to base the theory on why believe?
@lederereddy You said: "All they are ever finding is fossils of whole creatures." That's exactly what they would expect to find. Evolution doesn't suggest that a non-viable creature will EVER be found as fossils. All creatures that ever existed (and survive for any period of time) have been complete creatures.
Mutations non-viable for their environment will fail to reproduce in sufficient numbers to survive as a species.
Do you REALLY think we're looking for duck-gators? Does Kirk? Really?
@pburto A transitional creature would be one that was between the stage of being a lizard and a bird. It would resemble a lizard but because it was subject to your theory it wouldn't be a bird yet either. Besides the staged hoaxes name one intermediate. There are none, wait, 16 (sketchyatbest) intermed's for all of creation, Ken Miller stated in a debate, but there should be millions! The fossils actually support the creation account perfectly, therefore I have more to base my faith on than you
@pburto In stark contrast we can all see that in fact we are here. Against staggering odds and physics itself here we are. We didn't roll of a rock in the 336th trillionth raindrop, no, we were born into a family, a human family. Why is that, burt? In school we learned about art and artists, architects and architecture. We were tested on how well we could place the art with the artist and the architecture with the architect. We could score high by seeing commonality of the designer of either....
@pburto The mathematical odds for a universe like ours being here and for the world to be just as it is and not nine hundred billion trizilion other things that absolutely hostile to every life form is way more evidence for this simple truth. It's not an accident. The design we see doesn't just look designed it really is designed. The problems of the world will not be answered by science because they're spiritual problems. And your personal hopes desires wants needs are best answered spiritually
@lederereddy You're right, it's not an accident that life began on this planet. This planet had ideal conditions for life, and it is not the only planet in the universe that is.
@cacox then if it is not the only planet that has ideal conditions for life, considering most of the other planets are older than our own or close to our age...i would suspect that some other in our solar system has humans, with governments etc??
@lexibabylove I think you misunderstood me. I never said that any other planet in out solar system could support life (why you think they would look human is beyond me), but there are Earth-like planets elsewhere in the universe that have conditions that are suitable to support life.
@cacox u say that we arenot hte only planet in the universe that has the ideal conditions for life....i am wondering how come we haven't found any yet....or why have they not formed as we have? evolved etc....
@cacox "@lederereddy You're right, it's not an accident that life began on this planet."
According to you it is. You don't understand the full implications of what you believe. I don't understand how you don't see the simplest truth's! You don't understand that if you believe Evo, then you have to start from the big bang? Yes I know what you have been taught but that's BS. I don't mean it meanly it just is.
It's physically impossible for dirt to come alive but your swayed to believe it anyway.
@cacox "Your aware of mutations, right" Well aware!
You're implying that they create new digital lines of code. It's more like management of existing resources, not added information. The fact is, if the mutations continue to compound the situation it's a fatal and at best destructive end for any living organism. That said, why do you imagine highly educated scientist exploit the use of this to blind side unsuspecting students to the point that they believe mutations actually design build etc?
@lederereddy Not all mutations have negative effects, but rather have a positive influence on the organism's survival. Many of these mutations have been shown to form new allels which are then passed on through natural selection.
@cacox "You're right, it's not an accident that life began on this planet. This planet had ideal conditions for life," And I'm right that, that is no accident.
"and it is not the only planet in the universe that is." This is the only planet that any life form has ever been found. Unless you have discovered something the rest of us don't know about! Please do not reference fossilized meteorites, rocks, etc. They're not alive or fossils they're patterns in rocks, I've seen them.
@lederereddy I never said that we have encountered life anywhere else. What I said was that Earth is not the only planet that has the ideal conditions for life. Again. I'm not saying that we have found life anywhere else, merely suitable eviorments for life.
@lederereddy Your argument that god must have created us because we haven't found other civilizations is so flawed it makes me wonder why I'm not bleeding from my ears after reading it. Humans are still in technological infancy. Our technological state just 100 years ago is absolutely laughable and our technological state now is still fairly weak I would argue compared to what we will see in the future. You should read up on the difficulty with regards to astronomy to find extra solar planets.
@CFrostyTheSnowman My argument that because we haven't found life spinning into existence all around us is evidence that it takes a huge amount of labor to insulate our existence from certain destruction. That's a fact, a flawless fact that you choose to ignore because it destroy's the possibility of a slow mindless development, resulting in this world as we see it. What if it were the other way around and life was able to exploit any environment but I said you're weak using that as evidence?
@lederereddy Calling it a "flawless fact" doesn't make it true, if you knew anything about biology or geology or anything really you would know that there is life in extreme conditions, there just isn't life turning into humans because yes Earth is ideallic, but once again, we are in technological infancy. We can't find life like humans because it's more than a little difficult to even FIND extra solar planets let alone tell whether or not there is life on them. Learn some science please.
@CFrostyTheman Man has more toy's and information is flying around like never before but there is superb evidence in archeology that the level of intelligence back in the so called bronze age is equal or surpasses the intellect of man today. When you're ready to listen all you have to do is read commentary on scripture to see that everything about who and what man is these days was explained graphically way back in the bronze age. God's way ahead of you, friend. "It is written" covers 2day too.
@lederereddy The trouble is, we have evidence of similar levels of humanity ot our own, from circa 40,000 years ago--I'm talking now about cave paintings at places like Lascaux. These people were also human, and certainly displayed an extraordinary aesthetic sense. So where does that leave Biblical chronology?
assuming there dated correctly and the artists were half monkey. There is better evidence that this earth is less than 10,000 years old (earths magnetic field is one) and if you're just depending on atheist dogma that's somehow duped the world into believing anything that doesn't suit evolutions timetable must be wrong then yes I'm sure you're right!. Whatever you believe about 40,000 years ago you believe by faith except you don't have the reference of Gods word.
@lederereddy The last 10k yrs may be studied using human documentation, carbon dating, U-Th dating, thermo-luminescence, Pb-210 dating, Cs-137 dating, dendrochronology, ice core layers, laminated lake sediments, lichenometry, and paleomagnetic dating.
Dendrochronological records reach 11k years. There's a living tree in Sweden nearly 10k years old. Vostok ice core data goes back 420,000 yrs.
@NevilleRhysBarnes You do realize there's no certain way to test for absolutes when it comes to dating. Your science may be persuasive but none the less you could be wrong just the same as creo's who've disputed your dates with their data. It is a matter of faith, nevelle and to disagree is a sure sign of religious belief based bias. In other words you want to believe God didn't do it more than we believe He did because most creo's understand where that line is drawn between faith and fact.
@lederereddy That is utterly wrong. For example, ice core data, lake sediment data, and dendrochronological data can be calibrated by relating them to documented events, such as the Santorini eruption. Any kind of radiometric dating has at its core radioactive decay, which is highly predictable and almost impossible to slow down or speed up. I don't personally measure the age of rocks, but I have friends who do, and I could do it if I wanted (I know the techniques).
Oh Kirk, cant you see your growing pains were because of transitional evolution?
MikeMilazzo 4 days ago
Kirk Cameron owned this Atheists ...fools...they are fools....
RunColorado100 1 week ago
that was offensive and completely wrong. if you have any questions about reality just ask
fuctanyway 3 weeks ago
She says we are constantly changing. Where is the change occurring? If we are constantly changing, why do we look like the paintings and sculptures of human beings from the distant past. The operative word is constantly. What arrogant bluffing and posturing. They say every living creature is a transitional form while admitting that there are no fossils showing one kind transitioning into another kind. Then she blabs on about mutations, etc. Transitioning is believed without evidence.
luvmusic09 1 month ago
@luvmusic09 distant past is measured in the 10s of millions of years
JohnF30Music 2 weeks ago
@JohnF30Music so what do you call something you can't prove, you can't see, and it is not there......Evolution ...........
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@luvmusic09 I'm a creationist and a christian, but what you said at the start there is not a good argument ;/. Evolutionists make it very clear that the constant changes are noticeable after millions of years, not a couple of thousand. Again I believe that evolution is illogical, but I just wanted to point out that what you said was not a fair argument...
Using your argument, then we should be able to see ourselves getting taller everyday because we grow constantly (which we don't). Takes time.
Singetally 1 day ago
Dealing with Crocoduck-Bananaman-Cameron is almost too much to absorb. It is an overload of ignorance and nonsense from just one poorly-evolved human being.
There is another YouTuber who has already done a terrific job of replying to Kirk. So, I will defer to her in her YouTube video:
"Origin of Stupidity" by ZOMGitsCriss
RCSVirginia 1 month ago 4
@RCSVirginia Even with EVOLUTION Evidence. youcan never proof theres NO GOD. And you WILL go to Hell if you dont repent. thats a fact. Weather you believe it or not.
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 1 week ago
LOL at evolutionists, they still have offered no evidence and make claims such as we are transitional forms. What a pathetic religion
kingseho 1 month ago
@kingseho So what about your appendix?!?!?
SuperJuliusC 4 weeks ago
what about a platypus?a living link between mammal,bird,and reptile(venom glands)its right in front of you.how about a tadpole turning from basically a fish to an air breathing creature?
msc8472 2 months ago
The DNA was a great point.
F22Rapter2468 3 months ago 2
@F22Rapter2468 AGREED!!!!
hope1029384756 2 months ago
kirk cameron repesents the faith weill go kirk keep standing !!!!!!!!!!
SuperEricpang 4 months ago
Simple cell? An oxymoron! Cells are vastly complicated! You would have to be extremly simple to think that cells are simple. lol. Even proteins are complex!
bigbenusa45 4 months ago
on kelly's part....she shouldnt be so attitudy when kirk and ray are being so nice with soft answers. A gift from God is peace. thats what kirk and ray have. kelly is being attitudy and looking for claps and responses from the audiences, kirk and ray are not. read Proverbs 15:1. this is a good example of not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Every knee will bow and tongue confess romans 14:11
BFFFL16 4 months ago
@BFFFL16 coming into a debate without having any clue how evolution works is, while predictable since it is being interpreted by a creationist, still annoying to the evolutionist who is explaining it.
MrNicMachiavelli 3 months ago
I don't think he ever was an atheist he doesn't understand evolution or what an.atheist is what an idiot
MrLovejoy91 5 months ago
Kirk Cameron is retarded. He thinks just because there was a time in his life where he didn't attend church, that made him an atheist.....lol
nuttysweet1978 5 months ago
Basically their view on evolution is: I believe is micro evolution but not macro evolution. If you do not understand the terms, they are basically saying: I believe in the minute hand of the clock, but not the hour hand.
It is that rediculeus. I believe in centimeters, but not kilometers. I believe in milli liters, but not gallons. It's all the same thing.
Defhrone 5 months ago in playlist Rational Response vs Kirk and Ray Debate
2:26 the proof that kirk descends from monkeys.
that´s enoguh evidence for me.
camadai 5 months ago
This is sooooo funny. There are animals everywhere that have different parts that they don't even use anymore! I don't think Kirk and that other wack-a-do did ANY research in the matter, they were just gonna trust in "god" to make it all happen. "No one's seen it happen"? Ofcoarse not! It takes millions of billions of years for something to reform! And to say there is no proof! Go to museums and they will show u the evolving species peice by peice! Idiots.
83redrose83 5 months ago
This is so asinine.
Learn about evolution before you talk about it Kurk and Ray.
fcdog555 5 months ago
the fact of evolution vs the myth of creation is always an entertaining debate. But I would have preferred to see a conversation between creationist (or as Richard Dawkins would say, 'History Denier') and a Scientist who both knew and read the theory of evolution.
Kirk Cameron doesn't know anything about evolution, if he did he would know that mammals are NOT descended from frogs. their common ancestors may have been amphibian, but you would most certainly not call them frogs.
Gregorick 6 months ago
Kirk needs to read Darwin, if he hasn't already.
Gregorick 6 months ago
Kelly your letting me down, lol you just did. evelution has just let me down.
martin101jc 6 months ago
it is a shame kirk didnt study evolution with an open mind.
MrChristainchris 6 months ago
watch?v=ug5xZ1fOr6Q
This link will brake down all of the flaws in there arguments.
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago
My source Prof. Ken Miller
and talk origins.
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago in playlist Documentary
Human and grate apes have matching retro viruses proof of common ancestor.
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago in playlist Documentary
I have videos and pictures of all mentioned fossils in videos and my bg.
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago in playlist Documentary
He should also look up ring species.
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago in playlist Documentary
Human chromosome 2 proof of macro-evolution in humans.
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago in playlist Documentary
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis,Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago in playlist Documentary
how can anyone misunderstand such a basic concept???
slightlyst0o0pid 6 months ago
@thre3eplus But, I know what you are saying; Will I just take anything I read or hear at face value; right or wrong and teach it to my kids, simply because some person who claims to be a Christain says it is right? No. The Bible also says; The sheep know the Master's voice, I test everything I read and hear by the Spirit of God and by the Word of God and if it rings true to the truth I know then I believe. But I trust the Bible completely, The Old King James, anyway.
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@Brookesk1977 Ok, but how do you explain people, equally devout, who tested their "truths" with equal methods, using the same book as the litmus test, and came to the conclusion that torturing people is what god wants, and hating Jews is demanded by god, and torturing them, lest they denounce their faith, is a fine christian thing to do. What does the bible have to say about lying to children? Should I teach my child to fear an ivisible ogre in the sky?
thre3eplus 6 months ago
@thre3eplus In the Bible there is no mention of anyone who truly belongs to Christ torturing anyone, on the contrary, believers in Christ were tortured by non-believers and told to renounce their beliefs and there God or die. So if a man says that God told him to murder or torture or hate then he is a liar or he is deceived and he does not belong to God no matter what he says.
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@Brookesk1977 Hey, what's your name anyway. I'm Tom. Are you a politician? Because you can't seem to answer a simple question. Is the torture perpetrated by the Romans on your christian brethren different than the torture perpatrated by your christian brethren on the Jews? If not, then how is it that you gleen different conclusions from the same bible and think that your interpretation is the correct one? What is the comparison that makes yours right and their's wrong? R U an abortionist killer?
thre3eplus 6 months ago
@thre3eplus My name is Brooke, good to meet you. No I'm not a politician, lol. I hate politics. Like I have said before; I don't know much about history, but...OK, I'm not saying that "my Christian brethren are above torturing people, they are still human after all, and make mistakes, but if they did I hope they saw the error of their ways and asked God for forgiveness, because like I also said GOD does not condone those things. He never said it was OK to torture or brutalize anyone.
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@thre3eplus I'm trying to give you more in way of answers but this YouTube is impossible, it keeps on wanting me to prove I'm human with codes and and won't let me make more than one post without signing off and signing back on again, sorry about that. :)
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@Brookesk1977 Hey listen. You're a fine person.No doubt of that.But I keep asking you about what to tell kids, and what the bible has to say about lying, and how you can tell whether something is truth or not. You say that you just know, because you have a special connections.I say that that's what your brethren said also during the Inquisitions, yet look at what all they did. There must be a better way to tell you speak truth to kids or not. Do you tell them that water can be turned into wine?
thre3eplus 6 months ago
@thre3eplus Well, hey, thanks for that, you sound like a decent guy and it has been fun debating you like this, I don't usually like debates. In general the Bible tells us not to lie, it is one of the Commandments. And the Bible says not to make little children stumble, figureitively, and not to decieve them. The difference between people who are truly connected to God and those who are not is that the liars do dispicable things in the name of God and say he told then to do it.
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@thre3eplus I myself haven't seen anyone turn water to wine and I won't tell my kids that I have,but I'll tell them what the Bible says.Actually I've never seen any major miraculous things such as;major illnesses or injuries being healed on the spot or someone being raised from the dead,but I've seem many little personal miracles in my own life.That's what gives me certianty in what I believe.Like I said it's personal and God knows what touches each of us,what touches one may not touch another..
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@Brookesk1977 Well, that's fine. What else can it be but fine? This whole thing strated when you claimed that merely believing something second hand is the same as knowing it, and therefore it is sufficient to vouch for something. I tried to tell you with my questions that that is a dengerous attitude, because that locks out your god given 100% free moral agency. But. . . that's cool. You're a fine man, to be sure, but you might think on what I said even so.
thre3eplus 6 months ago
@thre3eplus I'm a girl.
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@HipRockInc did you watch the video? its pretty clear to me. sorry you seem to be an angry person. have a great day and God Bless :)
HITIDES1 6 months ago
@thre3eplus Ok, you needn't shout at me. lol. They did prove it for themselves with their belief because the Bible says it and they believe the Bible. The apostle John was an eye witness to that event and wrote it down to let people know about it. If you choose not to believe the Bible that is your choice, but I believe every word of it. And at the end of my life, if I happen to be wrong, then I will have lived in sure and certain hope for a glorious afterlife with my Lord and I will die happy.
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@Brookesk1977 AMEN :)
HITIDES1 6 months ago
@HITIDES1 Thanks, love. God Bless You. :)
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@Brookesk1977 All right. If I read a 15th century book that describes proper christian behavior, such as the appeasement of god that derives from witch burning, and Jew tormenting (for being chirst killers), and I proceed to tell my children that these are proper christian behaviors, and when somebody calls me on it I say, "hey I say these things to my children because I believe the book from which they came, then ought I be excused?Where is the limit to where that excuse is no longer operable?
thre3eplus 6 months ago
@thre3eplus I'm not very good at most histories, it was one of my weakest subjects in school. So I've never read any history book about witch burning, regardless, I don't believe that is ok. God does not condone witch burning or any other evil thing that a man does to another. God says; Vengence is Mine; I will repay. Now, I used to believe whole heartedly in the death penalty, but as I have grown in my relationship with the Lord I've become more uncertain about that...
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@thre3eplus ...because as long as God allows a person to live there is stll a chance that they may repent of any wrong they have done and that they may in the end turn to God and be saved, and i want that more than anything, and God wants that more then I do. The Bible says; It is not God's will that anyone should perish. He wants all to come to repentance and to belong to Him, He loves every single one of us; the lost also. But God is not going to force Himself on anyone if they don't want Him
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@thre3eplus Yes they can "personally" vouch for what they claim. They can't make anyone else believe what they are saying. Belief is a personal choice. A relationship with God is a very personal thing and you can only experience Him if your heart is open to Him. If a person has determinedly hardened their heart to God, over and over, as so many people have, they may eventually lose their ability to experience God. I have personally experienced God myself, He has made Himself very real to he.
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
Does anyone notice that woman's attitude, she has got such an ugly one, while Kirk and his partner are trying to explain in a calm and loving way. That should tell you something. So if there is no God I should be as ugly in my attitude as she is. I am so glad there is a God so that He can teach me to walk in His ways and teach me to to approach people, even people who disagree with me, in a calm and loving manner.
Brookesk1977 6 months ago
@dopanan You can't even quote me accurately and then tell me I need to read a book? Whatever dude... happy trails to ya
Wunji1 6 months ago
What these people desire is personal homeostasis. They are not searchers, and they have no need or desire to enlarge the human truth treasury, despite the biblical admonition, "search and ye shall find." I knda feel sorry for them, especially when they open their mouths to speak. However, we must not forget that if what they believe brings them peace, then why not?
thre3eplus 6 months ago
@dopanan Woah, we still do not understand gravity completely. And although I am a novice at quantum mechanics, I do know that the jury is still out on the subject. Einsteins ideas don't mix well with the pioneer paradox, casimir effect and other things - so they are at best inconsistent with quantum theory. The graviton still works with the Standard Model, so the hunt still continues. I may not be a particle physicist, but this line of reasoning does little to help in this context....
Wunji1 6 months ago
@dopanan oops! Maybe you should pay attention as well - lol. READ what I wrote. I said, and I quote "You will be hard pressed to find someone who USES Pre-Darwinian evolutionary thought as a REFERENT..."
Wunji1 6 months ago
@dopanan Well now, thanks for making his point. It isn't science if you can't observe it...
Wunji1 6 months ago
She is so ignorant...lol "Even if there were no fossils, no transitional forms..." - The very fabric of Evolution is based on the fossil record. What an idiot!
Wunji1 6 months ago
@Wunji1 No it isn't. A larger portion of evolution has to do with genetics. Smaller portions have to do with anthropology and cosmology. It isn't all about the fossils. You're the ignorant one.
HipRockInc 6 months ago
@HipRockInc Pay attention. I said the very fabric of Evolution is "based" on the fossil record. I didn't say all of Evolution. The foundation of your precious theory is based on the work of Darwin, an amateur geologist. He was neither a cosmologist, nor a geneticist. Perhaps you were unaware of this?
Wunji1 6 months ago
@Wunji1 I'm not unaware of anything. Evolution or the foundation of or the "very fabric" of it is not based on the fossil or Darwin.
HipRockInc 6 months ago
@HipRockInc I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere. I'm sure you will get to it soon. However, tracing evolutionary thought back to the time of the Greeks, or even to a time nearer Darwin himself carries no weight within the context of the debate in the video. You will be hard pressed to find someone who uses Pre-Darwinian evolutionary thought as a referent...
Wunji1 6 months ago
@Wunji1 I'm not really talking about pre-Darwin so much as I am talking about post-Darwin. Charles Darwin is not the lynchpin that holds evolutionary theory together. Evolution is a 150 year old scientific theory. You think that maybe someone did some work on it during that time?
If you missed the point, that is your problem. Evolution is not reliant on the fossil record. Indeed if there were no fossil record, there would still be a mountain of evidence.
HipRockInc 6 months ago
@HipRockInc Ok, we will all wait to hear about this "mountain of evidence" outside the fossil record or any geological data that would server to glue evolutionary theory together. Take as many posts, and as much time as you need. I'm always eager to learn more...
Wunji1 6 months ago
@HipRockInc After you have said all that you need regarding genetics, I will then respond...
Wunji1 6 months ago
Kirk did a great job!!!
HITIDES1 7 months ago
Kirk does a fantastic job !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HITIDES1 7 months ago
Classic idioucy
joctheviper1 7 months ago
Kirk's argument is far more persuasive than the other. Creation does contain information... There is no way the human body could "create" itself!
OnlyYours33 8 months ago
It's sad to learn the role of a dumb teen ager was portrayed by a stupid actor.
tranquility4all 8 months ago
hahahahahaha, I don't think Kirk understands evolution at all. He might want to study a bit more on the subject. Maybe even talk to some biologists. Hell, if he has Skype I would gladly sit down and teach him about it. If anyone knows how to get in touch with him, let me know, I would gladly help him out.
MrGDArts 8 months ago
oh, watchmaker argument, it really is boring....
thwoolfe 8 months ago
Kirk is a classic example of what "religious indoctrination" does to a person. It warps the mind, places limits on God (the spirit or energy) and completely shuts a person down to anything else but what is written in your holy manual. Smh!
trw1501 8 months ago
Kirk is right on some of his points but so are the Atheists. Kirk is attempting to convert people to his religion, Christianity because his bible teaches him that he need to "save souls". Christians need to realize that not everyone is going to become a Christian & that doesn't make them wrong. Use your faith for your own life Kirk. Love people where they are & be persuaded about Jesus in your own mind. Obviously you are having doubts.
trw1501 8 months ago
Energy (spirit or God) can transition into any form without limit because energy is what gives any form of existence life. Darwin had it right when he said we are constantly evolving. Evolution is not limited to monkeys. We have the ability to evolve in our mind, body and lives. It's not hard to believe that monkeys evolved into the human race. The human race is just one of many forms of existence. The energy (spirit or god-mind) is highly intelligent.
trw1501 8 months ago
I believe in both evolution and creation. You can't have one without the other. I believe that scientifically we are human beings encased over an energy form that some call God, others call spirit. Energy (spirit or God) can't be seen in it's pure form but it can been seen in a form of transition, such as a human, animal, plant, sun, trees, etc. Spiritually speaking the energy that resides inside of us is constantly creating our life experiences such as health, wealth, peace, happiness, etc.
trw1501 8 months ago
Professor Farnsworth proved this on Futurama There are literally dozens of transitional fossils that are lready know. Cameron is just woefully ignorant or he is dangerously delusionary.
zapkvr 8 months ago
Professor Farnsworth proved this on Futurama
zapkvr 8 months ago
Correct, No really, Kirk is correct, Everything that ever lived was a complete species. Nothing was ever trying to change into something else. That is why there are no '' missing links''. Then he goes on to say scientists are looking for a Crocoduck. Proving he doesn't understand what he is talking about.
There are many 'transitional fossils'', ones who share traits of different kinds of animals. ie. Dinosaurs with feathers.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@02:23
ahhh yess patterns with no information...
wait what are BARCODES?
checkmate creationists.
duswdav 8 months ago
the stupid hurts so much
SezSays 8 months ago
KIrt is freaking awesome
VampireQueenEve 9 months ago
God is real and great
SteveJace123 9 months ago
@SteveJace123 prove it
hazza1o1 9 months ago
A human slept with an ape.....thats how we got AIDS and HIV. Now, where is that half ape kid? He must be the missing link.
dannywizz 9 months ago
@dannywizz You don't seem to know how evolution work either. Humans and Chimps were the same animal 10 million years ago, we are different species now.
gregrutz 8 months ago
Kirk talks UTTER bollox. End of.
TheAlexacaius 9 months ago
Ever heard of the Lenski experiment? Its just more proof of evolution. Google it.
311Larry311 9 months ago
@311Larry311 Ah yes, Lenski. Let us know when the bacteria actually change species.
thewayofthemaster 9 months ago 3
@thewayofthemaster you're an idiot
hazza1o1 9 months ago
@thewayofthemaster The bacteria change species every time they get a little more intricate, slightly more complicated. There is no physically visible change therefore we don't change the whole species from every multiplication.
Jed0fSpades 5 months ago
@thewayofthemaster evolution doesn't state that a living species changes into another in the course of it's life
thisFishIsLikeJava 5 months ago
@thewayofthemaster I think you have a misunderstanding of evolution. If you accept microevolution, then why can't you accept macroevolution? Do you think things just "stop" evolving after a while?
jeremy193 4 months ago
@jeremy193 Microevolution is like jumping as high as you can over and over. Macroevolution is the claim that given enough time, your jumping will get you to the moon. Do species do not change species. They only vary within their kind.
thewayofthemaster 4 months ago
@thewayofthemaster Your analogy is fallacious. You claim with microevolution, you "fall back down" to where you were. This is just off the top of my head, but I think, in my opinion, a better way of explain it would be a never ending stairway.
jeremy193 4 months ago 3
@thewayofthemaster .. what if evolution is true.. will you hang yourself?
ab330 4 months ago
@thewayofthemaster Your obviously an idoit...btw the "likes" in this video is becasue they got owend, if you look in the first video where the two idoits were talking, they got disliked like hell, anyways im trying to say, "creation" is a losing battle.
DJOuiParty 4 months ago
@DJOuiParty
you're*
I don't correct all grammar I see, only the ones where the Irony is too much to handle.
F22Rapter2468 3 months ago
facepalm
martynwonder 9 months ago
who does kirk know so much about DNA... oh, thats right from science...
ab330 9 months ago 6
@ab330 Evolution is not science. It is religion. Look up the definitions genius.
dec4dence 4 months ago
@dec4dence.. evolution doesn't teach you how to live you idiot..... it doesn't try to make your feel special by telling you how much it loves you and how happy you will be for eternity if you obey it. ....it's like physics or chemistry...it's just a science. Get your head out of your religious @ss for a minute and think for yourself.
ab330 4 months ago
i think its silly to say we dont know how it happened therefore my book of magic and my particular brand of god must exist. it doestn work that way. you cant rey on science one minute and magic to fill in the spaces you dont understand.
live4pce 10 months ago
@lequi7 anointed-one [dot] net...all their credentials are there also.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83 Don´t believe every piece of s*** out there... If an evolutionist claims there are no transitional fossils, it may be to point out that every single fossil represents a species in its own right, that is, there is no such thing as an ape-human, rather an australopithecus...
lequi7 10 months ago
Kirk thinks if an animal is fully formed it can't be a transitional animal. He is wrong, all transitional animals are fully formed. Kirk thinks that genomes contain digital information. This is false. Genomes contain information but it is not digital information. Evolution is not an accidental process as Kirk claims. It is an orderly process where small mutations are either helpful to survival, unhelpful to survival, or a hinderance to survival.
john17972 10 months ago
Kurt sucks
salmonegg1 10 months ago
@salmonegg1 Who's Kurt?
thewayofthemaster 10 months ago 21
These people make me want to scream they are so ill informed. Cameron clearly lacks a basic understanding of what evolution is. Evolution is a progressional process taking billions of years to create any significant change and evolution can't be obviously seen in the individual but over thousands of generation. You won't get an obvious transitional form, such as the crocodile duck(!), because one generation will not produce that much variation.
OkiOka12 10 months ago
These IDIOTS are making a mockery of the thousands and thousands of hours spent by scientist, painstakingly putting the evidence together.
They blindly dismiss any evidence, without bothering to go and look at it, simply for the selfish reason of keeping their sky daddy alive.
It is PREPOSTEROUS!!!
Trinitics 10 months ago
ok im not shure but digital info is a series of zeros and ones that are very specific to their perpouse. witch if im not mistaken is a pattern. BOO YA!! 6th grade science beats that argument.
AllyTV1 11 months ago
As pointed out, even if we didn't have 1 transitional form, it wouldn't matter because we have so much evidence in the form of biology and genetics, it takes a true blind eye to deny it all. Most people don't seem to understand what a 'transitional form" is and what it implies, but talkorigins has a great and vast list of transitionals for anyone to look at in chronological order, with characteritics, etc...The info is out there, people just have to be honest and look at it.
dallased25 11 months ago
There is an intellectual who has studied and even taught evolution for years.
He eventualy came to see the flaws and gives evidence why.
watch this you tube clip
Dr Grady Mcmurtry Evolution no Evidence part 1
ogiaag5m 11 months ago
Kirk is only partly right about DNA. Yeah, it does have the "instructions" on how to make a nose, stomach teeth, ect. But it also has the "instructions" on how to make vitamin C, tails, lay eggs, make gills, claws, nictilating eyelids, scales, ect.
The funny thing is that we ONLY have the genes we should have according to common descent. If we had genes from creatures that werent part of our specific lineage, for example the genes to develop feathers, then evolution would be wrong.
melancholyid 11 months ago
lequi7 Well said.
basstrom188 11 months ago
@montrealwatcher - Hehe, you kinda sound like Kirk
Critic863 11 months ago
Kirk is an idiot
rationalopenmind 11 months ago
I completely disagree with Kirk on the faith matter, because his an idiot! Hmm, come on, he is, and you know it. Yet I like him as an actor :) I think he's a good/creative person inside!
armelix73 11 months ago
Here are three good reason to not believe in GOD. 1. There is no super deity to save the earth and make it right. We would have to taking responsibility for our actions on nature, therefore nature and this earth will have grater value. 2. This is the only life you are ever going to have. There will be no after life and live becomes more valuable and greater morality and ethics would result. 3. There will be no need to kill someone because his god was different than yours. No need for War.
01NevP 1 year ago
If there was no god than this life would have greater value since this is the only life one will ever have. This is why in countries that have less violence there are more atheist.
01NevP 1 year ago
This is totally ridiculous, how frustrating must it not be to "debate" someone at the level of the banana man and Kirk Cameron seriously these guys are so embaressing words can not describe it.
johaneriksandberg 1 year ago
no fossils,but evolution is still soundly supported by BIOLOGY....man she needs to go to science class before saying something like that
TheBakor 1 year ago 2
@TheBakor DNA.
MrLemex 11 months ago
@TheBakor Why? She is saying that there is mathematical data and carbon data to support it. You don't actually need the fossils. We know how far it is to Pluto,no one has ever been there but we have mathematical proof to support how many miles it is to get there, we also no how long it would take to get there at a certain speed. It's also like convicting someone of murder in court even though no one saw the murder enough evidence can convict someone. Is that too hard to understand for your brain
Flipper79able 10 months ago
@TheBakor
Evolution doesn't need fossils to be supported; biology is adequate. I don't know why you think she's wrong, but she's not.
selectivexhearing 10 months ago
Did you notice neither one can prove there POINT.
MrUrimthummim 1 year ago
Nature can produce information, Cameron. It's called LIFE.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus is God, I love God
moneymelo10 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus is God, I love God
moneymelo10 1 year ago
Both world views presented here are false. The notion that an actively creating theistic god and a universe which is a result of mindless random events are both nonsensical. An unknown, undefined, non-personal, intelligent agent(s) who set the initial conditions of the universe which then grew and evolved on its own according to those conditions is the more logical position and which is the best interpretation of modern science.
revo1974 1 year ago
Along the last 50 years, various transitional fossil have been found. These fill the space between species. The problem is, for creasionists, each new step can be seen as a totally different species (God-designed offcourse), and now "there's not one but two gaps to be explained".
Eventually, there will be so much transitional fossils that creationists will have to pray to have been born on the Middle Ages.
lequi7 1 year ago 13
@lequi7 I love this "Eventually, there will be so much transitional fossils that creationists will have to pray to have been born on the Middle Ages." Thank you.
CFrostyTheSnowman 1 year ago
@lequi7 Odd the people who say these are not true transitional fossils are evolutionists. They have a entire site dedicated to evolutionists being quoted saying this.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83 What are you saying? Which site?
lequi7 10 months ago
The atheists are insulting. How can you deny that? Being called ignorant is not what I would call a compliment. "gentle people" my ass
glewis2edu24 1 year ago
@glewis2edu24 Oh grow some tougher skin do you know how irritating it is to half to explain over and over again to creationist the evidence for evolution to have them just stick there fingers in there ears.Maybe the creationist should know the facts before they get into a debate instead of spending there whole time trying to disprove the evidence.Perfectly good question "How can you deny that?" because to argue the facts because it doesn't support your theory is an argument from ignorance.
DeluxBagger 1 year ago
Wow, DNA is digital eh.....this is so damn funny.
dredsdomain 1 year ago
@dredsdomain DNA is digital by definition.
Genoda 1 year ago
if god was truly all loving all powerful "sins" wouldnt exist, people wouldn't be born gay or with no conscience. poverty would not exist etc... ahhh rant over. we should just live our lives rather then being preached at to live our lives in a certain way. i'm a good person i don't harm others i do things as morally abiding as i can, yet i'm bisexual, so i'm def going to hell... seriously i couldn't give a damn!
diamondlass88 1 year ago
haha i love it when people debate, personally i'm no christian, neither am i a die hard athiest, however science does seem to show more evidence for the existence of no god then religion does for the existence of god. my christian friend is always going on about how evolution etc is illogical, i find it hard finding any logic in a god that created our world in 6 days?. or the stoning to death of adulterers, homosexuality being a sin and so forth.
diamondlass88 1 year ago
@cacox @pburto That lederereddy guy seems like he sniffed a few lines of coke & decided to take on every person on this page who posted in favor of evolution at once. I've answered claims like his a 100 times over & I'm frankly tired of it. It's tiresome explaining the mechanisms of evolution & abiogenesis with a 500 character limit. Still, his unsubtle assault on the intellect has a deranged ring to it. I've been in the field of Psychology long enough to recognize delusional when I see it.
bencamp18 1 year ago
EVERY form is both transitional, and fully formed. This is not a contradiction. Both are facts.
pburto 1 year ago
@pburto Every form is transitional and fully formed is a contradiction when you run that test far enough back & deep enough into the problem. There's no way to reconcile the miriads of problems in the reality of that actually happening. You guys think Christianity is built on faith? What do you call your beliefs, science? Haha, not hardly! I call it desperate to believe anything as long as it's not God! Nothing is less scientific then claiming all life evolved from one cell. That be ignorance =|
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy Wanna try that again, but make sense this time?
How is it a contradiction to say that every fully-formed creature is transitional?
And yes, I agree with most Christians who say Christianity is built on faith.
pburto 1 year ago
@pburto All they are ever finding is fossils of whole creatures. They don't even know anything more than that creature was buried and became fossilized by some catastrophic event. You have been fed a line and by faith you believe it. This cleaver line about every fully formed creature is transitional isn't science because we all know what transitional species really means and it's not recorded in the fossil record just like macro isn't in biology. With nothing to base the theory on why believe?
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy You said: "All they are ever finding is fossils of whole creatures." That's exactly what they would expect to find. Evolution doesn't suggest that a non-viable creature will EVER be found as fossils. All creatures that ever existed (and survive for any period of time) have been complete creatures.
Mutations non-viable for their environment will fail to reproduce in sufficient numbers to survive as a species.
Do you REALLY think we're looking for duck-gators? Does Kirk? Really?
pburto 1 year ago
@pburto A transitional creature would be one that was between the stage of being a lizard and a bird. It would resemble a lizard but because it was subject to your theory it wouldn't be a bird yet either. Besides the staged hoaxes name one intermediate. There are none, wait, 16 (sketchyatbest) intermed's for all of creation, Ken Miller stated in a debate, but there should be millions! The fossils actually support the creation account perfectly, therefore I have more to base my faith on than you
lederereddy 1 year ago
@pburto In stark contrast we can all see that in fact we are here. Against staggering odds and physics itself here we are. We didn't roll of a rock in the 336th trillionth raindrop, no, we were born into a family, a human family. Why is that, burt? In school we learned about art and artists, architects and architecture. We were tested on how well we could place the art with the artist and the architecture with the architect. We could score high by seeing commonality of the designer of either....
lederereddy 1 year ago
@pburto The mathematical odds for a universe like ours being here and for the world to be just as it is and not nine hundred billion trizilion other things that absolutely hostile to every life form is way more evidence for this simple truth. It's not an accident. The design we see doesn't just look designed it really is designed. The problems of the world will not be answered by science because they're spiritual problems. And your personal hopes desires wants needs are best answered spiritually
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy You're right, it's not an accident that life began on this planet. This planet had ideal conditions for life, and it is not the only planet in the universe that is.
cacox 1 year ago
@cacox then if it is not the only planet that has ideal conditions for life, considering most of the other planets are older than our own or close to our age...i would suspect that some other in our solar system has humans, with governments etc??
lexibabylove 1 year ago
@lexibabylove I think you misunderstood me. I never said that any other planet in out solar system could support life (why you think they would look human is beyond me), but there are Earth-like planets elsewhere in the universe that have conditions that are suitable to support life.
cacox 1 year ago
@cacox u say that we arenot hte only planet in the universe that has the ideal conditions for life....i am wondering how come we haven't found any yet....or why have they not formed as we have? evolved etc....
lexibabylove 1 year ago
@cacox "@lederereddy You're right, it's not an accident that life began on this planet."
According to you it is. You don't understand the full implications of what you believe. I don't understand how you don't see the simplest truth's! You don't understand that if you believe Evo, then you have to start from the big bang? Yes I know what you have been taught but that's BS. I don't mean it meanly it just is.
It's physically impossible for dirt to come alive but your swayed to believe it anyway.
lederereddy 1 year ago
@cacox "Your aware of mutations, right" Well aware!
You're implying that they create new digital lines of code. It's more like management of existing resources, not added information. The fact is, if the mutations continue to compound the situation it's a fatal and at best destructive end for any living organism. That said, why do you imagine highly educated scientist exploit the use of this to blind side unsuspecting students to the point that they believe mutations actually design build etc?
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy Not all mutations have negative effects, but rather have a positive influence on the organism's survival. Many of these mutations have been shown to form new allels which are then passed on through natural selection.
cacox 1 year ago
@cacox "You're right, it's not an accident that life began on this planet. This planet had ideal conditions for life," And I'm right that, that is no accident.
"and it is not the only planet in the universe that is." This is the only planet that any life form has ever been found. Unless you have discovered something the rest of us don't know about! Please do not reference fossilized meteorites, rocks, etc. They're not alive or fossils they're patterns in rocks, I've seen them.
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy I never said that we have encountered life anywhere else. What I said was that Earth is not the only planet that has the ideal conditions for life. Again. I'm not saying that we have found life anywhere else, merely suitable eviorments for life.
cacox 1 year ago
@lederereddy Your argument that god must have created us because we haven't found other civilizations is so flawed it makes me wonder why I'm not bleeding from my ears after reading it. Humans are still in technological infancy. Our technological state just 100 years ago is absolutely laughable and our technological state now is still fairly weak I would argue compared to what we will see in the future. You should read up on the difficulty with regards to astronomy to find extra solar planets.
CFrostyTheSnowman 1 year ago
@CFrostyTheSnowman My argument that because we haven't found life spinning into existence all around us is evidence that it takes a huge amount of labor to insulate our existence from certain destruction. That's a fact, a flawless fact that you choose to ignore because it destroy's the possibility of a slow mindless development, resulting in this world as we see it. What if it were the other way around and life was able to exploit any environment but I said you're weak using that as evidence?
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy Calling it a "flawless fact" doesn't make it true, if you knew anything about biology or geology or anything really you would know that there is life in extreme conditions, there just isn't life turning into humans because yes Earth is ideallic, but once again, we are in technological infancy. We can't find life like humans because it's more than a little difficult to even FIND extra solar planets let alone tell whether or not there is life on them. Learn some science please.
CFrostyTheSnowman 1 year ago
@CFrostyTheman Man has more toy's and information is flying around like never before but there is superb evidence in archeology that the level of intelligence back in the so called bronze age is equal or surpasses the intellect of man today. When you're ready to listen all you have to do is read commentary on scripture to see that everything about who and what man is these days was explained graphically way back in the bronze age. God's way ahead of you, friend. "It is written" covers 2day too.
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy The trouble is, we have evidence of similar levels of humanity ot our own, from circa 40,000 years ago--I'm talking now about cave paintings at places like Lascaux. These people were also human, and certainly displayed an extraordinary aesthetic sense. So where does that leave Biblical chronology?
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
@NevilleRhysB"cave paintings"
assuming there dated correctly and the artists were half monkey. There is better evidence that this earth is less than 10,000 years old (earths magnetic field is one) and if you're just depending on atheist dogma that's somehow duped the world into believing anything that doesn't suit evolutions timetable must be wrong then yes I'm sure you're right!. Whatever you believe about 40,000 years ago you believe by faith except you don't have the reference of Gods word.
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy The last 10k yrs may be studied using human documentation, carbon dating, U-Th dating, thermo-luminescence, Pb-210 dating, Cs-137 dating, dendrochronology, ice core layers, laminated lake sediments, lichenometry, and paleomagnetic dating.
Dendrochronological records reach 11k years. There's a living tree in Sweden nearly 10k years old. Vostok ice core data goes back 420,000 yrs.
Faith? No, just science.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
@NevilleRhysBarnes You do realize there's no certain way to test for absolutes when it comes to dating. Your science may be persuasive but none the less you could be wrong just the same as creo's who've disputed your dates with their data. It is a matter of faith, nevelle and to disagree is a sure sign of religious belief based bias. In other words you want to believe God didn't do it more than we believe He did because most creo's understand where that line is drawn between faith and fact.
lederereddy 1 year ago
@lederereddy That is utterly wrong. For example, ice core data, lake sediment data, and dendrochronological data can be calibrated by relating them to documented events, such as the Santorini eruption. Any kind of radiometric dating has at its core radioactive decay, which is highly predictable and almost impossible to slow down or speed up. I don't personally measure the age of rocks, but I have friends who do, and I could do it if I wanted (I know the techniques).
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago