Re: Rational Response Squad takes on Christians on ABC

[CapsHockey100]

What is the origin of the first transition? Or using your analogy, that there is not much difference between immediate generations, because each generation is close to its parent, and that one is close to its parent, and so on. Where would the first parent come from? Could their be more than one 'parent?' Instead of common ancestor, common ancestors?

[theuserD]

why is it that every time I see an atheist its the typical neckbearded fat idiot???

[53sled]

Obviously you are unfamiliar with Kelly O'Connor?

[Shyhalu]

@theuserD Same reason that everytime I see a thiest its either a southern redneck hillbilly, A young guy using the technology that science produced to record himself disputing what science says about our origins, an old priest that molests boys, or an older man that preaches family values while breaking them IE: Ted Haggard

[bdrman2004]

Thank you for you example, but you only pointed out that the theory of evolution is based on the understanding that it takes a long time for small changes to occur. We all are aware of this. The Cambrian explosion on the other hand totally disproves the theory of evolution and if you want to make a contribution to this subject i challenge you to explain how Darwin couldn't fit that into his theory. I hope you give that some consideration. Thank you

[AnonymousB2B]

"croc-o-duck"

yeah, i was embarrASSed for Cameron.

[alieales]

Good vid thank you!

[maglavagna]

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

[wormeater1876]

exaclty

[Aheadstix85]

@maglavagna Thats bullshit!, thers no actual evidence!, you'd have to be out of your mind to believe evolution, i have documented evidence of evolutionists saying its bullshit!, and all the so called"ape men" all fakes and frauds.

[RationalConclusion]

maglavagna is correct. Every fossil is indeed a transition fossil.  Evolution has an extraordinary amount of evidence to back it up which clearly shows it to be true. To not believe in evolution you've got to be either ignorant, stupid or insane.

[DrEinstein100]

@RationalConclusion Have you never herd of micro-evolution? This entire world and all of it's wonders appearing from nothing a presto or always having existed, as some claim, and then moving by the tiniest degrees until it is what it is today, is the biggest figment of an imagination that that I can think of. It just doesn't make any sense.

[RationalConclusion]

Evolution is not a "figment of the imagination". Evolution is reality.

Why doesn't it make any sense to you? What don't you understand?

[roblakov]

Okay Curly, you made the same mistake that all evolutionists make, your example is one of micro-evolution, variation within species if you will. It is your assumption that evolution exists that has you believing that if you go back far enough your ancestors would be more chimp-like. Certainly, small things can change from generation to generation but the question that you seem to be missing is whether or not that can add up to a whole new creature. I'm afraid they still haven't explained that.

[corytoronto]

roblakov, he DID explain that. if u were listning, (or just not stupid) he mentioned transitional fossils, you obviously dont know what those are. they are EVIDENCE( look up the word evidence)that evolution is occuring. like 'curly' says, at least take the time to learn how evolution works before you argue it, otherwise you just seem completley ignorant (also look up the word ignorant)

[roblakov]

Let's do this again. I know exactly what transitional fossils are. I also know that each of the gaps between said 'transitional fossils' is too great to say that they slowly changed into one another. You would have to have quite the imagination to say that these things came from one another. I understand that these people have been telling you it's the truth since before you could think for yourself...but now you can! Wake up and smell the roses on this one!

[clearmoments]

Firstly, every organism alive today is a transitional form (I know that it hurts your eyes/ears to see/hear that typed/said again and again because truth hurts.) So based on the fact that you cannot bridge the gap between micro and macro evolution, you don't know what a transitional form is. (cont'd)

[clearmoments]

There are always going to be gaps in the fossil record. Say, for example, I have transitional fossil A and transitional fossil B. I have a gap between A and B. Now I find a fossil C between A and B. I now have two gaps (one between A and C and one between C and B!) That does not detract from the fact that a transitional fossil now exists where there was none, strengthening the evidence that A led to B. (cont'd)

[clearmoments]

Perhaps you define speciation as being unable to breed, experiments in fruit flies (as one example of many) show that separating populations of flies can cause speciation to occur. I guess you could refer to that as macro-evolution.

[clearmoments]

The reality is far more nuanced than that: you are a slightly different species than your parents are, and their parents before them. It's just it takes lots time and evolutionary pressure to cause species to change radically. If the environment around them doesn't change much, the species doesn't change much. However the Earth's environment has changed radically over billions of years. Hence, many different species have been selected by evolutionary pressures. (cont'd)

[clearmoments]

What makes you think that if something can change a little in a short amount of time given pressures that it can't change a lot given enough time? E.g. economics: Macro-economics (the behavior of entire markets) is the end product of micro-economics (money changing hands between individual players.) The end result of the market is the summation of individual changes. Could the entire market remain unmoved while individual monies are changing hands? That just doesn't follow. (cont'd)

[clearmoments]

Fossil evidence along with molecular and proteomic studies, create an airtight case for evolution.  We are all related to chimpanzees: get over it. Indeed, we are all related to bacteria if you go back far enough. (final)

[paspax]

Cro-magnon & Neanderthal are not homo sapien.

Humans did not evolve from chimps. All simian creatures (monkeys & apes[that includes humans]) evolved from a common ancestor.

Theists see "gaps" & think they can use them to disprove evolution while ignoring all the other evidence. Wilful ignorance @ its best.

[MadPuppets1]

Australopithecus my friend

[Aheadstix85]

@MadPuppets1 Yes fake!.

[safewaysecurity]

umm... seriously?

[automaticSOM]

humans are not descended from chimpanzees.They have a common ancestor. but some transitional forms include australopithecus aferensis , homo hagilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis, ect.... and finally homo sapien

[GodKillerAtheist]

WOW your dumb ever hear of DNA LOL go to high school

[kqa5372]

Great video. Well said.

[DogmaFight]

As someone who understands evolution (pretty well, anyway), I think this is an excellent analogy/thought experiment for someone who does not

[orta85]

Sir Arthur Keith, physical anthropologist,who wrote the foreword to Darwins Origin of the species 100th anniversary edition said "evolution is unproved and unprovable.We believe it only because the alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable".It takes more faith to believe evolution than it does in God the Creator.We did not crawl out of the ocean or evolve from monkeys. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen.Rom 1:20a

[MindForge83]

Orta85. I support religion as a crutch for those whose spirit is too tepid 2 support itself alone. No probs there. But when you start to whip out a piece of cardboard and call it a globe of the earth, sorry..,but you're a fucking idiot! Instead of creating facts and figures that can be tested, u theists belch out quote-after-quote, often from antiquated sources that NEVER ADDRESS THE SCIENCE OF IT. This is about people wanting to ignore truth because it's too stifling for you & your kind.

[clownsatemymonkey]

I think you fear crocaduck an it's divine power.

[EGMAG]

So let me understand? There is no line of judgement between good and evil in the over 4,300 theologies the world over. There is no sin therefore; so anything goes and is fairplay, without the worries of divine retribution? Does this therefore discourage horrific evil or encourage it?

[kmardes]

both debators were terrible..both sides, but the theist argument was so pathetic i didn't know whether i was supposed to laugh or cry

[agwellin]

absolutely agreed. I wish they had gotten other people instead of the RRS. Like, actual science professors, or something. Christ, Kelly's an asshole.

[DaveJonesBSNews]

I'm suprised you didn't comment on how prepared both parties were. It was the worst atheist debaters vs the worst theist debaters. You think ABC could have used their immense resources to get maybe someone who could hold their own in a proper debate.

[ltzippy2]

There were many problems with the debate. RSS have actually admitted that they were not as prepared as they should have been so I decided to leave this. My problem is the ignorance or dishonesty of WOTM (or most creationists) with regards to evolutionary biology.

[DaveJonesBSNews]

I'd say it is dishonesty. Their arguements have been refuted so many times I can't believe they don't know about it. RRS should have watched their videos and produced a point by point rebutal. It's easy as WOTM arguements aren't new or changing.

[ltzippy2]

In know, not just RSS but many many others! What is it WOTM say, "Have you ever told a lie? The you're a liar!" Right back at 'em!

[teamtrinitydemo]

You're a Ding-a-ling.

[PolliFaxToaster]

i consider the term 'transitional fossil' to be a misleading lie. in reality, EVERY fossil EVER found could be considered 'transitional'. every species alive is 'transitional'. i dont know exactly what 100,000th ancestor would look like, but the races as we knew them today took about 2000 generations.

[CAndiron]

You look like James White, perhaps the most formidable Christian apologist alive today (see droakley1689 on youtube). He would have DESTROYED Brian and Kelly in debate, since debate is his specialty, but they won't return his calls. Too bad.

[Chimpdaddy]

Great video man. Keep spreading the rational thought.

[jezza18]

great video i agree thank you

[johnnyzondo]

very well done. thank you!

[Largo64]

There is a third possibility (beyond ignorance or willful dishonesty), and that is that they were trying, by presenting something completely ridiculous, to use humor to make the RRS people look stupid. Of course, the "humor" fell flat and they only made themselves look stupid. Ridicule, though is a tool that theists (and atheists, as it occurs to me) often use in arguing with each other. Great vid...as usual!

[Cafeeine]

You have a point, however as you say the use of humor was there, but for them to do this they must be either ignorant or dishonest to begin with.

[Largo64]

You remember the vid they put on YouTube using a banana as "the atheist's nightmare." At first I thought that they were serious and merely stupid. Now it seems as if humor was their intent. Of course it just opened them up to humor in return (see my vid "Re: The atheist's nightmare").

[Cafeeine]

The way I see that is that they are attempting to ridicule the concept, wihich will have zero effect on people familiar with it, but it may provide an easy out for believers that are beginning to have doubts, sort of like "Evolution =lizardcows, its silly, put it out of your mind". That is the only purpose I can fathom rationally (no pun intended) on the use of humor.

[aruhnka]

You are well spoken and are wonderfully articulate.

Hope you get some more hits on youtube.

Obviously Rational Response is in the right here, but I believe that they came across as mean spirited. Not helping the debate at all.

[CousinoMacul]

Dawkins has used the "ancestor chain" analogy to connect humans and chimps in a couple of his books. One of the main problems in the general understanding of evolution is that too many people still see "species" as being discreet and intrinsic distinctions.

[ltzippy2]

I know, and I think that this analogy should be used more often. As I said WOTM are being wilfully ignorant of the way evolution works or wilfully dishonest. Lets repeat this analogy as often as we can and hope it 'plants the seed of truth'