lol, there is some bitterness in the religious community aswell... and then he only mentions jihad. i would say that christianity has had its fair share of bitterness, the crusades, the burning of witches if im not mistaken, was by christians aswell, the persecution of gay people, and basicly anyone who doesnt believe what they believe, the whole vatican protecting priests and the list goes on...
They think with time a non-living thing can start to live, a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,
social behaviour and techniques of animals and insects are in the genes ! an the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did? evolved wings ! and the ability to fly !
throug random mutations and naturel selection, needless to speak about the evolution of plantes ...
even if you are an atheist.. you have to admit this guy representing his atheism beliefs is doing so inadequately. you can't pick & choose facts. the big bang theory is full of flaws.
Creationists think that complexity is evidence of design.
However a wise engineer would reduce the complexity, complex things tends to fuck up often especially when this level of complexity is not needed.
The camera lens are much better light receptors than any living eye, it doesn't need any special focus tuning and they can catch frames in a much higher rate, because they are less complex.
an engineer can always go back to the drawing board, an advantage that evolution don't have.
@PRJking Still EVOLUTION is shit. It states the underwater ancestors KNEW by "MAGIC" they were supposed to "CHANGE THERE EGGS" to get on "LAND" "THEY DIDNT EVEN KNOW ABOUT CUZ THERE UNDERWATER! ITS SHIT!!! TOTAL FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
The idea that organisms evolve due to desire or ambition had been discarded 200 years ago! (the Lamark hypothesis), Darwinian process is blind with no awareness nor voluntary involved.
Underwater organisms didn't know by neither magic or any other means that they were suppose to change anything.
The only ones who believe in magic or equally ridiculous nonsense are creationists.
Now play with your crocoduck doll leave us grown ups alone!
The eyes deterioration comes from the fact that sin entered into the world. God made it perfect but we sinned and thus everything on earth is now going through the curse of sin which its getting worse.
When he started talking about eyes and the drums kicked in I started imagining riding a donkey wearing a bandanna with 2-pacs beard trotting into a rainbow colored vortex...
Another thing I love is that these two imbeciles ACTUALLY ARGUE that, because religion is simple (ie, for the simple-minded) and doesn't require analysis of tangible evidence (ie, you can just believe it because you're told to) that it's more likely to be true than conclusions derived from thorough study of those pesky complex sciences which uncover evidence that lead to particular conclusions.
I love Love LOVE how O'Reilly is so deluded that he asserts he 'beat' Dawkins in his debate (a man whose intellect simply towers over O'Reilly's). I guess O'Reilly didn't actually watch the video, because Dawkins sent O'Reilly cowering in fear, stammering and - at one point - O'Reilly quickly changed subjects in a pathetic attempt to conceal the fact that he had no response to one of Dawkin's retorts.
I don't believe in a God (so to speak) but the Big Bang seems even more stupid to me. Can you fit an elefant in a car? What about 2? What about 100? Forget it!! There's just some much mass that can exist inside a certain room. The whole Universe could never squeeze into a tiny pea... not in a million years!! even 2 simple particles can't coexist in the same space, let alone the Universe.
@humbertojimmy: Mmm, no. We're not talking about cars, elephants or objects in the way you understand them. We're talking about pressure occurring on a sub-atomic level, where spaces between molecules condense so tightly that there's nowhere for them to go except to burst. If all the spaces between the molecules of your body collapsed, you’d shrink into near nothingness. You're example is completely fallacious and shows why so many people are unable to grasp the big bang.
@ThomasFerrugia Well, i'm guessing there's gotta be a minimum unit of space/time frame (since everything is finite, so they say) and whatever size that unit is, Math tells that it can't fit the Universe in it, otherwise (now reverse that logic to understand) it would have room to fit everything there is and therefore be infinite (a paradox, since the premise tells it can't, to start with).
@humbertojimmy: Clearly there's no paradox, since galaxies are constantly forming in the same manner ours did. Since you don't know the mechanics involved or the sizes of the units you're discussing, you can't perform the calculations. I tend to believe the brilliant scientists who've developed, explored and advance this theory are better equipped to undertsand the math involved than some guy just pulling stuff out of thin air so he can maintain his delusion of a magical space-ghost.
@ThomasFerrugia Who? Me? I already said i don't believe in God. And no scientist knows the size of the Universe, because it keeps ever expanding, wich in Math means "it tends to infinity", a paradox number on itself.
@humbertojimmy: I must have missed that bit ('God') and will take your word for it that you mentioned it somewhere. With respect to your finding an apparent paradox: The website Skyserver details how Hubble resolved this issue. I'd provide the web-link, but YouTube won't allow me to insert it into the comment section.
So idk if im understanding but if lets say we evolved from some sort of monkeys how come we stopped? And the big bang theory where did the explosion come from and how come there isnt another explosion with the same effects?
@computer100:We didn't evolve from monkeys - humans & primates share a common ancestor. Noone said we've stopped evolving. Evolution occurs over millions of yrs - we're always evolving, but it takes hundreds of generations to see. The explosion was trillions & trillions of atoms condensed so closely by gravity that they had no where else to go and burst into huge expanse of energy. It can't happen again because those atoms have already formed the universe (but new galaxies continually form).
Bill O'Reilly about Dawkins: "and i think i beat him in a debate because i basically said, look, you can not explain to me how the world, the earth got here"
k he doesnt get owned,this is just a sad excuse of someone trying to prove there is no GOD..well friends there is a GOD and he loves you all,and until you have felt the glory of GOD ur life will be wasted trying to prove him wrong!
@shinnman1796 No one would try to prove there is no God. Proving something doesn't exist is impossible. It is, however, very possible to show that Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort rely upon strawman arguments, equivocation fallacies, and other forms of intellectual dishonesty.
@shinnman1796: It doesn't work that way. Noone has to prove there's NO god. It's like me asking for proof there is NO Santa Clause. If you affirmatively assert the existence of a magical man who controls everything, then the burden is on you to demonstrate why it's true. In the history of man, no one's ever presented a shred of credible evidence to support the hypothesis that the universe was created by a ghost in space, then there's no reason to think there is one. Feel the glory of ME!!!!
@CDragnetti yes I do have a change to love and be loved.. By GOD, not this world. I am not of it. This race is not moving forward at all, we treat the earth like crap and dont even care, everyday we pollute so much and dont even care. I dont see the point in living for this world, I know im coming on strong and mabey im pushing you away but I cant just sit here knowing the most amazing thing ever. PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP!
@Aubart116 You were not put on this work as an accident by a rock exploding out of thin air.. no wait there was no thin air, so out of NOTHING! Im really sorry but I cant keep this secret anymore, you have to know!! I love you and hate seeing people wast their lives:( you arent a accident, you were created with a purpose.
@Aubart116 You have more faith than me!! you come with all these lies and beliefs to fight god.. just beleive, stop believing the lies of this world!!! Humans know 1/100000 of anything of the world! We were hear when the earth was made, how would we know anything.?? we dontt!!! how could this perfect earth and are perfect bodies be made from nothing. Our eyes, just think what is seeing? How can we see like its amazing!!! our brain just everything, its not an accident.
@Aubart116 Just because there exist things that are complex doesn't mean there is a god.
Listen, if you have a claim and you expect others to believe it, you have to bring forth evidence. Concrete evidence.
I am a horse.
See? I have every right to uphold that opinion, but you aren't going to believe me unless I bring forth evidence for my claim. It's the same with you theists. Support your claims, or shut them up.
@Aubart116 I believe in Jesus because I've seen him. We met at a party my buddy Charlie hosted, and Jesus got so drunk that he started taking bets as to how many golf balls he could stuff into his asshole without any falling out. He made it to 19, which isn't many if you ask me. I guess he isn't "perfect" after all.
Bill O'Reilly thinks he beat Dawkins in the debate? HA! O'Reilly pulls the same shit that every Fox broadcaster pulls, which is anytime the other guy is making their point, just interrupt them and yell really loud. O'Reilly got owned by Dawkins, and anybody with a brain knows it.
this is how it works oreilly. You dont take bias sides, instead progress an educated discution with contrasting theories, you DO NOTjack each other off after this 2 vs 0 debate.
This Kirk Cameron chap clearly has no idea about the mechanisms of evolution and his argument comes straight from his own incredulity. Your response was unfortunately marred however, by the comment "bats don't have eyes".
@stinnetbennet yes you can. the reason you need a different flu shot every year is because the flu virus evolves. we have needed to develop new antibiotics because the bacteria are evolving to gain resistance to the drugs. on a more macro level, fossil records are pretty convincing in the direction of evolution.
how would you explain the fossil of a whale with feet? which exists, there is one at the University of Michigan Museum of Natural History
@stinnetbennet Lol are you stupid?? You said "you can't prove that anything evolved" you can't prove God exist..For stuff we do not know we give an excuse which is "God", people don't want to believe that nothing happens after we die, so what do we do? We make "God", people back then and now question our existence, we say "God".
Here's the irony: The keystone human trait of evolution is intelligence. People are getting smarter and are able to retain and comprehend more and more. People who do not believe in evolution are not getting any smarter. Thus, not evolving. I say let all the stupid people believe what they want to the point where they will not be able to provide a sustainable lifestyle, and those who evolve will reap all the benefits. Can you honestly get into college if you think the world is 6,000 years old?
This is the most idiotic video I've ever watched... I believe in God but I understand evolution and have several people in my life (much smarter than you) who will debate with me evolution and im sorry, but you sir are embarrassing the evolutionists who actually know what they're talking about... using big words that sound scientific doesn't help either when you follow them with a statement such as... "bats don't have eyes"...
Way to go! Sorry this is like comedy to me. You picked apart Kirk Cameron, did you have nothing better to do? I mean come on I can't take your argument seriously if you use Kirk Cameron! This is some funny shit!
I don't understand these arguments. 'Something came from nothing' has literally nothing to do with atheism. Neither does the theory of evolution. The problem for the theist is that there is no atheist bible to deconstruct. In truth no atheist can shoot holes in the concept of an all powerful being either, the problems for the theist come when he hangs his cap on a religious peg. All of a sudden anyone who can read can rip his god to shreds.
Kirk's a fucktard. Look at his youtube channel 'thewayofthemaster'. He disables either comments or ratings or both on most of his videos. Plus I was banned from commeting probably because I said some statement that he didn't like. Typical religious fuck too ignorant for debating :)
good. there is no god. no prob there. the problem is that jesus christ sucks. no one "leader" in recorded history was as dirty, unkempt and lazy as this clown. hate me if u whant but he never worked a day in his life. his old man worked hard but not this prick. just like ppl today, another person slacking enjoying life and not working
O'Reilly: Leap of faith far beyond believing in Buddha to think that it just accidentally got that way. Huh?? Where is the creation of the universe mentioned anywhere in the Pali Canon and what did Buddha have to do with it? O'Reilly, please don't throw Buddhism into your ridiculous and bone headed theistic belief systems.
@deathmetal931 someone who id's himself with death asking someone if they're crazy? Don't strain your double digit IQ to try and think for yourself or nothing.
@fxtrader92 LOL, you're a total jackass. I named my Youtube account "deathmetal931", because it happens that I enjoy a subgenre of heavy metal music, called: DEATH METAL. Fuck, dude!!!
i love it when both sides go back and forth, but in the end its like two children getting into a fight and selling their story to the principal......there is no indisputable proof there is a god and there is no indisputable proof there is not a god go ahead and have your meaningless arguments that you wont know the answer until you die while i sit back and watch both sides make fools of themselves ^_^
Finally somone with a little logic on youtube, I think its stupid to argue about because you have about .000001 percent chance of changing someone's mind, so why get upset over it?
O'Reilly feels he won the "debate" against Dawkins? That's too funny!
Now Kirk: He concludes that the cameralens is designed because of it's complexity. But why does he assume that? What does he compare it to? Does complexity equal design? Does he have an example of something not being designed?
I love the way that idiot Cameron licks his lips before he says " crocoduck"..as if he is about to deliver the funniest line ever!...Thank God people have enough inteligence to see through these two idiots and the atheist movement is growing ...
@TheMrOshawottGuy Then why can't the fucking universe have always been? Thats why Christianity is bullshit. GOD can be around since forever, but THE UNIVERSE can't.
@HaydenDrist Not who can answer it, but rather who could not just answer it, but DIE for it. DIE for it! lol. you know His name. it starts with a "J" lol
@endthestory not who created God. Here's a question......if man faced a question with a definite, perhaps, infinte answer, without end or beginning, would he accept it? or rather..comprehend it?
@discipletrip18 there is ongoing works, but simple answer is we don't know. But just because we don't know this doesn't mean God did it. You can only say "God did it" when you first offer proof for the existence of YOUR God (not just any God, but your God specifically that you propose). And after that, you'll need to offer evidence why your God created those things. Lastly, note that quoting the Bible gets you nowhere.
@boogiebuddy01 what man is to science is like......what bill gates is to computers...or what the wright brothers are to aircraft.......it just isnt ENOUGH to be the ultimate answer. one is a porponent of reality, but ONE ultimately makes reality. i mean.....right?
excuse me but the atheist people are just plane stupid!!!! please just because you have some degree´s you are not God and..please atheist peolple stop embarrasing your self were are not alone we dont just dont happen to be here for some explosion acept jesus in your heart we are in the last days,or you can keep playing like a monkey with a mandoling thats what satan wants, dont hide behind evolution crap you know there's more.. please reed the bible learn something.
@12345678955984 If all the information on science was deleted, destroyed, lost, eventually it would alll be rediscovered eventually. Now if all info on religion was destroyed, knew belief systems completely different from any religion in existsance. Also if you have read the bible, which im guessing you didnt. God kills about 20 million wow satan kills about 10, if that means anything.
OMG there is no need for a designer look at it this way painter can create a painting correct logical, then in order for the painter to paint he/she needs to be designed so my question is simple you ask stupid questions so will i. Who created god? your logic indicates that there is always a creator show me who created god do that and i will believe LOL!
@shave23 Just as I ask you.. who created the first cell? Life only comes from life. Life must have always existed for us to be alive. Right. So thats why God always existed. He is the "life" that always existed. Science hasn't proved life can come from non-living matter.
@TheDersek pay attention to the video and you will see how the first cell and or singled cell organisms come from, in fact two scientist by the name of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey created a experiment to demonstrate that from inorganic material you could form amino acids or in other words organic material so yes science has proven that life could have came from non living matter. Read more pray less.
@shave23 the soup crap? lol.. It proved to make RNA..but not DNA. Without DNA theres no life. So, sorry, but science hasn't proved that life can happen out of non-living stuff
@shave23 you obviously don't know much about science. Look up Primordial Soup. And um.. No it has not been proved that life can form out of non-living matter.. whats wrong with you! Look up Biogenesis and Abiogenesis. Biogenesis is proven. Abiogenesis is not. Simple biology.
@TheDersek you serious,DNA is made of nucleotides which are your sugar phosphate and base bonds with in the DNA these molecules consist of much smaller molecules called amino acids which formed from inorganic material. without amino acids you cannot have DNA or RNA not even a nucleotide without amino acids. This is very strong evidence that most of you amino acids arose from Earth's primitive climate which was demonstrated by Urey and Miller. I know simple biology obviously not for you.
we dont 100% no how things were made but dosnt matter will just masked that by saying a magical human being created everything because thats the logical answer :/
i make love to my jesus every night right after i watch mr.rodgers with my pep pep. every time i see jesus up on that cross i cant help but think that he looks kind of hot. mi mo mo
Kirk Cameron has little knowledge of biology and chemistry...so one should not expect him or o'reilly to get their primitive heads around scientific evidence and data. Evolution is fact and theory but there is still many unknowns or holes in the theory. Evolution disproves in someways the monotheistic approach to describe how the universe and life started via genesis, which is nothing but a fairy tale. But a designer universe is still on the cards and one should keep an open mind
“My friend Ray Comfort has produced a powerful piece of media that leaves a lasting mark on your heart and mind. ‘180’ is 33 minutes of video adrenaline, shock, and hope. As defenders of the unborn and messengers of the Gospel of Life, we need to see this video and share it with as many people as we can.” Kirk Cameron - Actor and TV Co-host
Whats the point in insulting Kirk? Looks more like the "creator" of this video is owning up to being a douche. Some people would take the data you have presented of evolution (100% believable might I add) and use it to TRY to prove the existence of God, but I agree with hitchhikers guide on that logic. Proving God exists would actually prove that he doesn't exist and by that standard, proving he doesn't only makes it more likely that he does. :D
The theory of evolution is just dumb. I mean come on what person with an IQ above 15 could believe such utter shit!? Darwin was a good sketch artist but but knew fuck all about what he was drawing. At the end of the day the evolution theory is just an idea that atheists hold onto so that they don't have to face reality. But ignorance won't save them.
@MiccusMaximus I bet your one of those people that think evolution is a monkey having a human baby or some stupid crap like that. For you to say crap like that toward a scientist without any evidence or an argument just shows your ignorance. Do you actually know the science behind evolution? If you want act like you know what your saying then you better actually know what your talking about. Evolution is not an idea, it's science! Science works regardless if you believe it or not.
@lasharn07 There is no evidence for evolution. That is not science. Science is about coming up with hard facts example: 2 + 2 = 4 or the fact: human beings have 2 legs. Where are the missing links? They are missing because they don't exist. How dare people go around teaching this evolution shit as fact. It's fraud. Honestly "this animal magicly evolved into that animal" There is more basis in the belief of santa claus as his character was derived from a real person.
@MiccusMaximus The definition of science is: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural. "humans having 2 legs" are observations and science is coming up with explanations. Everything in science is made up of theories but that doesn't mean its false. The word "theory" is for some reason associated with a guess, which is wrong. Gravity is a theory and so is evolution. Its ridiculous to question
@lasharn07 I'm pretty sure taking an observation and coming up with a FACT is science, thus we see the anatomy of a human being and can conclude knowing the math that humans have 2 legs. Very basic but still science. "evolution" however is making observations but then having no firm basis for factual conclusion. so to replace a firm basis for factual conclusion, evolutionists fill in the blanks with anything they imagine. Telling a really good story doesn't mean it's a true story.
@lasharn07 Why is it not good enough to see things as they are and admit not knowing how we got here? Why is it so important to know everything, even if it means making up stuff? Evolutionists are self assuming and arrogant. Most people don't know exactly when and under what exact circumstances they were conceived, so how can anyone claim to know how the entire human race began. Be humble in knowing that you know very little about little and nothing about alot.
@MiccusMaximus Are you kidding? Scientists are the first to admit they don't know something because any ethical scientist strives for the truth and discovering how our universe works. The truth is, is that science still has a really long way to go. We learn and discover more about the universe as time goes by. Christians are self assuming because they believe in a ridiculous story with no credible evidence. We're not making stuff up, we're coming up with explanations which we base
@MiccusMaximus on scientific experiments, data, and taking many, many samples. Sure, scientific theories can change over time but these changes are only very small. The whole general principle is correct and I bet in a thousand years the theory of evolution will be similar and accepted as truth. You said: "telling a really good story doesn't mean it's a true story". well that is exactly what Creationism is. Evolution is backed up by science whereas creationism has no credibility
@lasharn07 Isaiah 40:22 describes the Earth as being a circle. This thousands of years before Europeans still believed the Earth was flat. But I'm not out to prove the Bible is true or that God exists. If God exists and it was his will, he could prove his existence on his own. The theory of evolution is going nowhere anyway, all that's happened is an accumulation of so called scientific evidence that really hasn't furthered the case for evolutionists.
@MiccusMaximus By that logic, God doesn't exist as he hasn't proven his existence. Also, people like you are close-minded because it seems that you, like many, many Creationists sincerely put your faith into denying evolution no matter how much evidence, all of which are credible, we present. You deny evolution without any argument or evidence of your own to back it up. Also, how can you say its going nowhere? Its discovering more about life and science=progress for humans.
@lasharn07 If God exists why should he prove his existence to those who deny him? Maybe if you seek him out, he will make himself known to you. If God exists, do you think he reaches out to those who call his book "nonsense"? There are more important things than science itself. IF evolution is the truth, what would it matter? Not a dime or nickel. My main problem with "evolution" is not the theory, it's that it's force fed as fact when it is just an idea.
@MiccusMaximus How many times have I said this to people? Tell me your argument which is evident that evolution is incorrect because the evidence for evolution proves it is fact. Evolution is an idea that has been proven fact. Everything in science began with an idea. What would it matter you say? Well progress in science is discovering the truth and explains how everything works. This is how we progress as intelligent species.
@MiccusMaximus As a matter fact, God is an idea. Man has created thousands before. What makes you think your God, if any, is real? If God was real wouldn't it make more sense for him to have an obvious and important role in everyone's lives? Shouldn't he make his presence obvious to all people so that on judgement day we can be tested solely on how good we have been as a person instead of if we believe of his existence?
@lasharn07 "evolution" would no doubt take millions of years. There are countless species on earth that require their entire biological system to function simultaneously. Eg, a certain bug may have a defence mechanism that protects it from predators, this bug didn't have millions of years to evolve it's defence otherwise it would have been eaten to extinction by it's predators sometime during it's supposed evolution. "
@lasharn07 "evolution" takes to long, by the time a species evolves to adapt to a certain environment, the environment has already changed numerous times. There are places on earth that have conditions only suitable for particular animals, animals that would have had to by your theory "evolve" to live there. However these places were drastically different only thousands of years earlier. Too short a time for species to have "evolved".
@lasharn07 It's a fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution. The environment and habitat changes far more rapidly then evolution could take place, thus cancelling it out as a possiblity. For a species to evolve it needs conditions to remain the same for a very very verrrry... long time. Time the Earth just hasn't given.
couple quotes from various articles which sums up what my refute would be: "Natural selection was not always a matter of ‘survival of the fittest’ but also survival of those most adaptable to changing surroundings."
"Evolutionary adaptations are caused by some force of natural selection such as environmental change, predation or anthropogenic disturbance."
So, one of the reasons species evolve is because the environment is constantly changing.
@MiccusMaximus Humans are particularly good at adapting based on the environment. Here's another article quote: "the evolutionary enlargement of the brain relative to body size, was especially pronounced over the past 800,000 years, coinciding with the period of strongest climate fluctuation worldwide."
So it was BECAUSE of climate change our brain size increased and we were able to process info better.
Your argument isn't a flaw with evolution but a justification.
@lasharn07 Last time I looked in a dictionary, adaptation was not the definition of evolution. I agree the theory of evolution does require a species to adapt. However there is so much more needed for the theory to even be plausible. Enlargement of the brain is not quite the same as growing wings or extra legs. We see adaptation everyday, people that live in sunny climates are usually darker skinned than people in cold climates.
@lasharn07 Despite our adaptation to various climate conditions our DNA structure remains the same. Growing extra limbs would require a restructuring of our DNA. Simple mutations would not suffice as evidence either. Take the peppered moth, it was thought that during the industrial revolution the black moths outnumbered the lighter moths because pollution caused the trees to be covered in soot, giving the black moths better camoflauge.
@MiccusMaximus Ok, I'm sure there must be other examples where circumstance allowed a certain species to thrive. I don't disagree with you on that. For example food availability is a factor for most species to thrive. However, although certain circumstances will allow a species to do well, it doesn't mean evolution doesn't occur. So how can you say mutations won't suffice as evidence when the example you gave didn't even support your argument?
@MiccusMaximus You said:"Despite our adaptation to various climate conditions our DNA structure remains the same. Growing extra limbs would require a restructuring of our DNA."
You actually think that? WOW! Of course our DNA structure is still the same. It always has been a double helix shape and always will be. Its what MAKES UP OUR DNA that changes our aesthetic or functional features. Changes to the genome sequence in our DNA can cause us to, as you say, "grow extra limbs"
@lasharn07 Was this natural selection? Was this evolution? No. Further analysis revealed the population ratios of black and lighter pepper moths varied in different regions and the colour of trees was not a factor. Sometimes light moths outnumbered the black population. Mutations aren't proof anyway as they are simply a multiplication of genes, not a complete restructure of DNA. Even if the visible outcome seems quite different.
@MiccusMaximus Ok. we'll end this on a mutual agree to disagree as internet arguments are really ineffective no matter how good or bad one side is. The end results of arguments like these is actually nothing. Internet arguments are the most pointless things but entertaining nonetheless. I am from Auckland, New Zealand by the way.
@lasharn07 To illustrate: what happens when you mix red paint with blue? You get purple paint. A noticeable difference but still just red and blue paint. A little extra red may give you a more maroon colour but again it's still just red and blue paint. Mutations work in much the same way. "evolution" if possible would basicly require, again to illustrate: mixing red and blue paint but then getting the colour green. Just ain't gonna happen. Never did.
@MiccusMaximus Yeah your example is not an example of evolution. However, evolution is not the only way to adapt to environment. For example, a lot of humans wear spectacles because our eyes are eyes go bad. Or back in those cave man days we create tools to hunt or we make clothes to keep us warm as our bodies haven't evolved to be able to survive in the cold. That's acceptable as there is no such thing as a perfect species. I never said adaptation defined evolution. Its just part
@MiccusMaximus of it. Actually mutations are changes in the genomic sequence. IDK where you got multiplication from. Mutation is one process for evolution. There is also adaptation, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and speciation. Mutations is a very vast topic (I admit I don't much about it) and there are so many ways it can affect, structural, functional aspects of all species. Just go on Wikipedia, it covers it all. BTW your illustration isn't applicable 4 mutations
@MiccusMaximus as you haven't really understood what mutations are. Your argument doesn't even support either side because what you have said is that the darker pepper moths survived better because of circumstance and then you say that in the end this circumstance (polluted trees) had no affect on the population ratio as it turns out that the light to dark ratio still varied. So ur example was NOT a mutation and it DIDN'T really change anything. So what was your point meant to be?
@lasharn07 My bad, I assumed you knew of the peppered moth case as it is/was widely refered to as evidence of evolution. This is because the black moths are a mutated variation of the light peppered moths. My point with the paint illustration, is in fact quite accurate. You see mutations do occur but this is only a "shuffling" or multiplication of particular DNA codes that are inherited from parents (much like mixing two paint colours together).
@lasharn07 However the DNA codes inherited by offspring are merely copies of the same DNA codes in their parents, the codes have just been resequenced. Therefore a species can get quite a variation genetic outcomes but only with the genes available from predecessors. So back to the paint, if you only have red and blue paint available, you can only get a variation of certain outcomes based on those 2 colours. Purple, mauve, maroon and etc.
@lasharn07 But not green as that requires yellow and blue paint instead of red and blue. If the codes aren't there to produce a certain outcome then it won't happen. Even if a species of animal without wings would seem better off with wings, without the codes it can never evolve to have wings. No matter what environmental conditions or any other factors.
@lasharn07 I feel you know there are crucial flaws in the theory of evolution as you have deviated from taking a head on approach with your argument. Any "evidence" you give can easily be explained away with a more plausible answer. Rather than defend the theory as EVOLUTION, you have brought to the fore only the so called evidence that seems to better your argument and ignored other factors that are needed for the theory to work.
@lasharn07 Just take an objective view. If there is no god than surely there's a better explanation than "evolution". There are just so many faults in the theory and remember "it only takes one hole in the hull for the boat to sink". Hope you understand that illustration.
@MiccusMaximus Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation. Mutations are much more complicated than the paint illustration but I'll try to explain in the next comment.
@MiccusMaximus You have purple offspring as the parents were red and blue but it is essentially still red and blue (as you said). This offspring mates with someone who had two red parents and the red from the partner is mixed with the red from the offspring to make a red child. For a green child you need red and yellow. So the red child has a mutation caused by either radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, hypermutations that adds yellow. This makes him green.
@MiccusMaximus Actually, that was poorly constructed. But your paint illustration is saying that you can only get variation of 2 colours (from the parents). In fact, it doesn't illustrate mutations, it only illustrates normal genetic variation in offspring (mutations aren't involved). An offspring has a mix of DNA from both parents (like red and blue paint) and it can mix to make almost infinite combinations. Mutations actually physically change the original color to be anything.
@MiccusMaximus So what I'm saying is, is that mixing red and blue paint represents normal reproduction. Mutations r changes 2 the genetic code which is like, in the paint illustration, transforming the original red color into somethin completely new. This new color can be mixed with the others and it substantially increases the amount of possible outcomes. So 1 process of evolution is passing down mutations (which potentially change an entire gene) in sex cells through generations
@MiccusMaximus You said: If there is no god than surely there's a better explanation than "evolution"
Well evolution is the best explanation that we could possibly have at this time based on extent of human knowledge right now (certainly a lot better than creationism). Science is subject to change over time and these changes can be slight or drastic. I personally think evolution will change but the general principle remains same as that is the nature of biology.
@MiccusMaximus You also said: "it only takes one hole in the hull for the boat to sink".
Based on that you have justified creationism is completely false as we know the universe and Earth is not 6-10k years old, we know the Sun does not revolve around the Earth and we know that the Earth is not the center of the universe. There are also a mass number of flaws with the global flood (Noah's story) creationists believe happened + others. So the creationist ship has definitely sunk.
@lasharn07 Incorrect. Whilst my paint illustration does also describe normal reproduction. Mutations are inherently the same except for say a multiplication of genetic copies. So instead of inheriting 1 red and 1 blue gene, offspring may get a multiplication of red say x2 and 1 blue. Resulting in mutation. The other circumstances you descibed either aren't going to result in successful mutations or aren't mutations but rather cross breeding.
Actually, depending on the type of mutation and the location of the mutation, mutations produce a completely new and different sequence. Mutations are not inherently the same as normal reproduction. Although using paint is extremely simplistic, infact, yes, it would be closer to a completely new colour instead of the same old colour copied twice. You have a completely new and different sequence, and therefore the colour is also different and new.
@lasharn07 Also the description you gave of biblical teachings is very incorrect. Nowhere does the bible say precisely how old the Earth or Universe is. Much of the Bible is written symbolically and should be understood with a degree of reasoning. There is also widespread fossil evidence that suggests the Earth underwent a dramatic climate change like a flood, at the proposed time of the biblical account.
Fruitcakes. The both of them (O'Reilly and Cameron)
That's why I don't watch Faux News nor TBN (The Bullshit Network)
dkdd7588 19 hours ago
lol, there is some bitterness in the religious community aswell... and then he only mentions jihad. i would say that christianity has had its fair share of bitterness, the crusades, the burning of witches if im not mistaken, was by christians aswell, the persecution of gay people, and basicly anyone who doesnt believe what they believe, the whole vatican protecting priests and the list goes on...
sirkenned 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They think with time a non-living thing can start to live, a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,
social behaviour and techniques of animals and insects are in the genes ! an the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did? evolved wings ! and the ability to fly !
throug random mutations and naturel selection, needless to speak about the evolution of plantes ...
YamiYami17 2 days ago
even if you are an atheist.. you have to admit this guy representing his atheism beliefs is doing so inadequately. you can't pick & choose facts. the big bang theory is full of flaws.
JayeRawb 3 days ago
@JayeRawb honestly tho.. the opening slide he tries to "own" the anchor. 10% of American adults.. not Americans..
JayeRawb 3 days ago
@JayeRawb is he representing big bang or evolution? or bangolution?? come guys you need a much better representative than this.
JayeRawb 3 days ago
Creationists think that complexity is evidence of design.
However a wise engineer would reduce the complexity, complex things tends to fuck up often especially when this level of complexity is not needed.
The camera lens are much better light receptors than any living eye, it doesn't need any special focus tuning and they can catch frames in a much higher rate, because they are less complex.
an engineer can always go back to the drawing board, an advantage that evolution don't have.
PRJking 3 days ago
@PRJking Still EVOLUTION is shit. It states the underwater ancestors KNEW by "MAGIC" they were supposed to "CHANGE THERE EGGS" to get on "LAND" "THEY DIDNT EVEN KNOW ABOUT CUZ THERE UNDERWATER! ITS SHIT!!! TOTAL FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 10 hours ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x
What a straw man!
The idea that organisms evolve due to desire or ambition had been discarded 200 years ago! (the Lamark hypothesis), Darwinian process is blind with no awareness nor voluntary involved.
Underwater organisms didn't know by neither magic or any other means that they were suppose to change anything.
The only ones who believe in magic or equally ridiculous nonsense are creationists.
Now play with your crocoduck doll leave us grown ups alone!
PRJking 10 hours ago
Arent those guy killed peoples who said World isnt flat, and is big rond ball! I he will teach as now how life begin hehe, stupid theists!
Ca6e1 3 days ago
I would like to see bill o'reilly eaten alive by wolves.
Dredefecto 3 days ago
The eyes deterioration comes from the fact that sin entered into the world. God made it perfect but we sinned and thus everything on earth is now going through the curse of sin which its getting worse.
jeditorque 3 days ago
Kirk Cameron I mean
Stupot80s 5 days ago
I fucking hate him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stupot80s 5 days ago
the right-wing douchebag tag teaming the christian douchebag is the problem of the face of this earth.
meggatonman 6 days ago
If a child can understand it.... its probably an idiotic belief.
133maxiboy 1 week ago
When he started talking about eyes and the drums kicked in I started imagining riding a donkey wearing a bandanna with 2-pacs beard trotting into a rainbow colored vortex...
Anyone else get that?
LeoRikimaru 1 week ago
Perhaps, the 2 biggest douches ever on tv....
2507559168 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wonder if Kirk believes in personification. This entire interview is hideous propaganda.
Crust218 1 week ago
Comment removed
Crust218 1 week ago
Another thing I love is that these two imbeciles ACTUALLY ARGUE that, because religion is simple (ie, for the simple-minded) and doesn't require analysis of tangible evidence (ie, you can just believe it because you're told to) that it's more likely to be true than conclusions derived from thorough study of those pesky complex sciences which uncover evidence that lead to particular conclusions.
ThomasFerrugia 1 week ago
I love Love LOVE how O'Reilly is so deluded that he asserts he 'beat' Dawkins in his debate (a man whose intellect simply towers over O'Reilly's). I guess O'Reilly didn't actually watch the video, because Dawkins sent O'Reilly cowering in fear, stammering and - at one point - O'Reilly quickly changed subjects in a pathetic attempt to conceal the fact that he had no response to one of Dawkin's retorts.
ThomasFerrugia 1 week ago
I don't believe in a God (so to speak) but the Big Bang seems even more stupid to me. Can you fit an elefant in a car? What about 2? What about 100? Forget it!! There's just some much mass that can exist inside a certain room. The whole Universe could never squeeze into a tiny pea... not in a million years!! even 2 simple particles can't coexist in the same space, let alone the Universe.
humbertojimmy 1 week ago
@humbertojimmy: Mmm, no. We're not talking about cars, elephants or objects in the way you understand them. We're talking about pressure occurring on a sub-atomic level, where spaces between molecules condense so tightly that there's nowhere for them to go except to burst. If all the spaces between the molecules of your body collapsed, you’d shrink into near nothingness. You're example is completely fallacious and shows why so many people are unable to grasp the big bang.
ThomasFerrugia 1 week ago
@ThomasFerrugia Well, i'm guessing there's gotta be a minimum unit of space/time frame (since everything is finite, so they say) and whatever size that unit is, Math tells that it can't fit the Universe in it, otherwise (now reverse that logic to understand) it would have room to fit everything there is and therefore be infinite (a paradox, since the premise tells it can't, to start with).
humbertojimmy 1 week ago
@humbertojimmy: Clearly there's no paradox, since galaxies are constantly forming in the same manner ours did. Since you don't know the mechanics involved or the sizes of the units you're discussing, you can't perform the calculations. I tend to believe the brilliant scientists who've developed, explored and advance this theory are better equipped to undertsand the math involved than some guy just pulling stuff out of thin air so he can maintain his delusion of a magical space-ghost.
ThomasFerrugia 1 week ago
@ThomasFerrugia Who? Me? I already said i don't believe in God. And no scientist knows the size of the Universe, because it keeps ever expanding, wich in Math means "it tends to infinity", a paradox number on itself.
humbertojimmy 1 week ago
@humbertojimmy: I must have missed that bit ('God') and will take your word for it that you mentioned it somewhere. With respect to your finding an apparent paradox: The website Skyserver details how Hubble resolved this issue. I'd provide the web-link, but YouTube won't allow me to insert it into the comment section.
ThomasFerrugia 1 week ago
@ThomasFerrugia If you scroll down, i'm sure you will read it. Ok, you've got me curious. Just send the link to my inbox.
humbertojimmy 1 week ago
what happened one second before the big bang? God said "let there be light"
karmalevel 1 week ago
So idk if im understanding but if lets say we evolved from some sort of monkeys how come we stopped? And the big bang theory where did the explosion come from and how come there isnt another explosion with the same effects?
computer100 1 week ago
@computer100:We didn't evolve from monkeys - humans & primates share a common ancestor. Noone said we've stopped evolving. Evolution occurs over millions of yrs - we're always evolving, but it takes hundreds of generations to see. The explosion was trillions & trillions of atoms condensed so closely by gravity that they had no where else to go and burst into huge expanse of energy. It can't happen again because those atoms have already formed the universe (but new galaxies continually form).
ThomasFerrugia 1 week ago
the guy who made this video is a faggot
TheSykeVideos 1 week ago
Bill O'Reilly about Dawkins: "and i think i beat him in a debate because i basically said, look, you can not explain to me how the world, the earth got here"
FUCK, I'm happy I'm not american.
channesw 1 week ago 2
k he doesnt get owned,this is just a sad excuse of someone trying to prove there is no GOD..well friends there is a GOD and he loves you all,and until you have felt the glory of GOD ur life will be wasted trying to prove him wrong!
shinnman1796 1 week ago
@shinnman1796 No one would try to prove there is no God. Proving something doesn't exist is impossible. It is, however, very possible to show that Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort rely upon strawman arguments, equivocation fallacies, and other forms of intellectual dishonesty.
YaleBreaker 1 week ago
@shinnman1796 lol, you are nuts.
butterscotchpoopies 1 week ago
@shinnman1796: It doesn't work that way. Noone has to prove there's NO god. It's like me asking for proof there is NO Santa Clause. If you affirmatively assert the existence of a magical man who controls everything, then the burden is on you to demonstrate why it's true. In the history of man, no one's ever presented a shred of credible evidence to support the hypothesis that the universe was created by a ghost in space, then there's no reason to think there is one. Feel the glory of ME!!!!
ThomasFerrugia 1 week ago
@CDragnetti yes I do have a change to love and be loved.. By GOD, not this world. I am not of it. This race is not moving forward at all, we treat the earth like crap and dont even care, everyday we pollute so much and dont even care. I dont see the point in living for this world, I know im coming on strong and mabey im pushing you away but I cant just sit here knowing the most amazing thing ever. PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP!
Aubart116 2 weeks ago
@Aubart116 You were not put on this work as an accident by a rock exploding out of thin air.. no wait there was no thin air, so out of NOTHING! Im really sorry but I cant keep this secret anymore, you have to know!! I love you and hate seeing people wast their lives:( you arent a accident, you were created with a purpose.
Aubart116 2 weeks ago
@Aubart116 You have more faith than me!! you come with all these lies and beliefs to fight god.. just beleive, stop believing the lies of this world!!! Humans know 1/100000 of anything of the world! We were hear when the earth was made, how would we know anything.?? we dontt!!! how could this perfect earth and are perfect bodies be made from nothing. Our eyes, just think what is seeing? How can we see like its amazing!!! our brain just everything, its not an accident.
Aubart116 2 weeks ago
@Aubart116 Just because there exist things that are complex doesn't mean there is a god.
Listen, if you have a claim and you expect others to believe it, you have to bring forth evidence. Concrete evidence.
I am a horse.
See? I have every right to uphold that opinion, but you aren't going to believe me unless I bring forth evidence for my claim. It's the same with you theists. Support your claims, or shut them up.
crywolf30 2 weeks ago
@Aubart116 I believe in Jesus because I've seen him. We met at a party my buddy Charlie hosted, and Jesus got so drunk that he started taking bets as to how many golf balls he could stuff into his asshole without any falling out. He made it to 19, which isn't many if you ask me. I guess he isn't "perfect" after all.
butterscotchpoopies 1 week ago 2
@Aubart116 chance*
Aubart116 2 weeks ago
Kirk came to my church, I don't even believe in Christianity.
Radiohead4121 2 weeks ago
This is what happens when you don't use your Brains.
wowamonn 2 weeks ago
O' Relly NEVER sounds like he knows what he is talking about. It's as if he just read some how to be right wing-type of manual.
Shad3251 2 weeks ago
I watched a video once with two guys claiming that a banana proves god exists. I think I'm still amazed by how ridiculous that idea is.
Shad3251 2 weeks ago
Bill O'Reilly thinks he beat Dawkins in the debate? HA! O'Reilly pulls the same shit that every Fox broadcaster pulls, which is anytime the other guy is making their point, just interrupt them and yell really loud. O'Reilly got owned by Dawkins, and anybody with a brain knows it.
JandBMan312 2 weeks ago
If you watched the Bill v. Dawkins debate. Bill, he absolutely gets destroyed...
lukewalburn2 2 weeks ago
The little notes throughout the video make this whole thing worth it xDD
cocopup220 2 weeks ago
this is how it works oreilly. You dont take bias sides, instead progress an educated discution with contrasting theories, you DO NOTjack each other off after this 2 vs 0 debate.
molly43able 2 weeks ago
This Kirk Cameron chap clearly has no idea about the mechanisms of evolution and his argument comes straight from his own incredulity. Your response was unfortunately marred however, by the comment "bats don't have eyes".
Jay1984F 2 weeks ago
Just because something is simple doesn't mean its the truth....
jdempy 2 weeks ago
Kirk Cameron shouldn't be allowed to speak in public
thinkboutit 3 weeks ago
he used the eye arguement ? good try :) awwwee he tried to use his brain <3
gsgsgstdsss 3 weeks ago
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha... he thinks he beated Richard Dawkins?!?!?! :-D
Spilorify 3 weeks ago
stupid and ignorant people!...world without religion would be a dream come true!
UglyKidMetallica81 3 weeks ago
evolution is an impossiblity. you can't prove that anything evolved.
stinnetbennet 3 weeks ago
@stinnetbennet yes you can. the reason you need a different flu shot every year is because the flu virus evolves. we have needed to develop new antibiotics because the bacteria are evolving to gain resistance to the drugs. on a more macro level, fossil records are pretty convincing in the direction of evolution.
how would you explain the fossil of a whale with feet? which exists, there is one at the University of Michigan Museum of Natural History
3377ftw 3 weeks ago
@stinnetbennet Lol are you stupid?? You said "you can't prove that anything evolved" you can't prove God exist..For stuff we do not know we give an excuse which is "God", people don't want to believe that nothing happens after we die, so what do we do? We make "God", people back then and now question our existence, we say "God".
Radiohead4121 2 weeks ago
Here's the irony: The keystone human trait of evolution is intelligence. People are getting smarter and are able to retain and comprehend more and more. People who do not believe in evolution are not getting any smarter. Thus, not evolving. I say let all the stupid people believe what they want to the point where they will not be able to provide a sustainable lifestyle, and those who evolve will reap all the benefits. Can you honestly get into college if you think the world is 6,000 years old?
tweedon1 3 weeks ago
No, Jihadists are savages because they specifically target and kill civilians, women and children, dipshit.
bleedinmaroon1 3 weeks ago
This is the most idiotic video I've ever watched... I believe in God but I understand evolution and have several people in my life (much smarter than you) who will debate with me evolution and im sorry, but you sir are embarrassing the evolutionists who actually know what they're talking about... using big words that sound scientific doesn't help either when you follow them with a statement such as... "bats don't have eyes"...
bubbleboyshane 3 weeks ago
Way to go! Sorry this is like comedy to me. You picked apart Kirk Cameron, did you have nothing better to do? I mean come on I can't take your argument seriously if you use Kirk Cameron! This is some funny shit!
enuff761 3 weeks ago
I don't understand these arguments. 'Something came from nothing' has literally nothing to do with atheism. Neither does the theory of evolution. The problem for the theist is that there is no atheist bible to deconstruct. In truth no atheist can shoot holes in the concept of an all powerful being either, the problems for the theist come when he hangs his cap on a religious peg. All of a sudden anyone who can read can rip his god to shreds.
ZelenoffFanClub 3 weeks ago
Thats only cause you people dont care to listen to the truth....
benloveshillary 3 weeks ago
Kirk's a fucktard. Look at his youtube channel 'thewayofthemaster'. He disables either comments or ratings or both on most of his videos. Plus I was banned from commeting probably because I said some statement that he didn't like. Typical religious fuck too ignorant for debating :)
luv4drums1 4 weeks ago
Kirk cameron=Proof that evolution is a work in progress....did he procreate? If so, SAD!
vomit49894 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
good. there is no god. no prob there. the problem is that jesus christ sucks. no one "leader" in recorded history was as dirty, unkempt and lazy as this clown. hate me if u whant but he never worked a day in his life. his old man worked hard but not this prick. just like ppl today, another person slacking enjoying life and not working
mistercoolio1997 4 weeks ago
O'Reilly: Leap of faith far beyond believing in Buddha to think that it just accidentally got that way. Huh?? Where is the creation of the universe mentioned anywhere in the Pali Canon and what did Buddha have to do with it? O'Reilly, please don't throw Buddhism into your ridiculous and bone headed theistic belief systems.
pdslt 4 weeks ago
These people are such idiots.
logtenbm 1 month ago
The atheist nightmare the banana lol lmao
lilkush909 1 month ago
bill o reilly won that debate against R.D. lolol. no xD
ShooterCinema 1 month ago
Why are you ripping on Kirk Cameron? You're such an angry little man that you have to go online and criticize him?
I'm not religious but I saw his movie "Fireproof" and you know what? It was really good.
citygirl5705 1 month ago
And No! Science hasn't. Seemingly brilliant minds are so clueless.
Roselawn47805 1 month ago
Funny that people who can't fathom faith do their best to destroy it but fail miserably.
Roselawn47805 1 month ago
I saw that debate with Dawkins, O'Reilly did not win.
Bot23 1 month ago
I love how idiot religious nuts expose their own idiocy every time they speak. Pathetic.
ngrivard 1 month ago
Comment removed
qu3ter 1 month ago
Comment removed
qu3ter 1 month ago
One of the worst forms of editing. Keep your day job. And you're flat wrong. Evolution is a myth.
fxtrader92 1 month ago
@fxtrader92 Aw, were all those big words too much for you?
thebeatlesarecrap 1 month ago
@fxtrader92
i dont belive in evolution i accepted the theory of evolution
i don't belive in gravity i accepted the theory of gravity
ShooterCinema 1 month ago
@fxtrader92 Are you crazy?
deathmetal931 4 weeks ago
@deathmetal931 someone who id's himself with death asking someone if they're crazy? Don't strain your double digit IQ to try and think for yourself or nothing.
fxtrader92 4 weeks ago
@fxtrader92 LOL, you're a total jackass. I named my Youtube account "deathmetal931", because it happens that I enjoy a subgenre of heavy metal music, called: DEATH METAL. Fuck, dude!!!
deathmetal931 4 weeks ago
happy birthday isaac newton
zxcv7641 1 month ago
i love it when both sides go back and forth, but in the end its like two children getting into a fight and selling their story to the principal......there is no indisputable proof there is a god and there is no indisputable proof there is not a god go ahead and have your meaningless arguments that you wont know the answer until you die while i sit back and watch both sides make fools of themselves ^_^
MRQ1257 1 month ago
@MRQ1257
Finally somone with a little logic on youtube, I think its stupid to argue about because you have about .000001 percent chance of changing someone's mind, so why get upset over it?
TheBigHugeMonkey 4 weeks ago
O'Reilly feels he won the "debate" against Dawkins? That's too funny!
Now Kirk: He concludes that the cameralens is designed because of it's complexity. But why does he assume that? What does he compare it to? Does complexity equal design? Does he have an example of something not being designed?
GoaHead80 1 month ago
Yeah, Bill, you beat Richard Dawkins in a debate. Please stop eating mescaline before you go on the air.
itstonymacaroni 1 month ago
I love the way that idiot Cameron licks his lips before he says " crocoduck"..as if he is about to deliver the funniest line ever!...Thank God people have enough inteligence to see through these two idiots and the atheist movement is growing ...
yeovil50 1 month ago
@endthestory, nothing, he just always was.
TheMrOshawottGuy 1 month ago
@TheMrOshawottGuy Then why can't the fucking universe have always been? Thats why Christianity is bullshit. GOD can be around since forever, but THE UNIVERSE can't.
BF3hasDINOSAURS 1 month ago
Kirk claims a camera lens has a creator, thus an eye has a creator as well. Then who created God?
endthestory 1 month ago
@endthestory what is the human definition of God? who can answer that question with full assurance?
HaydenDrist 1 month ago
@HaydenDrist Not who can answer it, but rather who could not just answer it, but DIE for it. DIE for it! lol. you know His name. it starts with a "J" lol
HaydenDrist 1 month ago
@endthestory not who created God. Here's a question......if man faced a question with a definite, perhaps, infinte answer, without end or beginning, would he accept it? or rather..comprehend it?
HaydenDrist 1 month ago
Where did the chemicals, water, planets etc. come from?
discipletrip18 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@discipletrip18 there is ongoing works, but simple answer is we don't know. But just because we don't know this doesn't mean God did it. You can only say "God did it" when you first offer proof for the existence of YOUR God (not just any God, but your God specifically that you propose). And after that, you'll need to offer evidence why your God created those things. Lastly, note that quoting the Bible gets you nowhere.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@discipletrip18 doesnt everyone anna know lol
HaydenDrist 1 month ago
people shouldn't talk about stuff they don't understand
boogiebuddy01 1 month ago
thank Nerds for freedom of thought
boogiebuddy01 1 month ago
thank Man for science
boogiebuddy01 1 month ago
@boogiebuddy01 what man is to science is like......what bill gates is to computers...or what the wright brothers are to aircraft.......it just isnt ENOUGH to be the ultimate answer. one is a porponent of reality, but ONE ultimately makes reality. i mean.....right?
HaydenDrist 1 month ago
excuse me but the atheist people are just plane stupid!!!! please just because you have some degree´s you are not God and..please atheist peolple stop embarrasing your self were are not alone we dont just dont happen to be here for some explosion acept jesus in your heart we are in the last days,or you can keep playing like a monkey with a mandoling thats what satan wants, dont hide behind evolution crap you know there's more.. please reed the bible learn something.
12345678955984 1 month ago
@12345678955984 If all the information on science was deleted, destroyed, lost, eventually it would alll be rediscovered eventually. Now if all info on religion was destroyed, knew belief systems completely different from any religion in existsance. Also if you have read the bible, which im guessing you didnt. God kills about 20 million wow satan kills about 10, if that means anything.
EpicOrangeMods 1 month ago
science says that cells cart improve they down grade so hos did we improve to humans come one people look for your self you have eyes ;)
mclane6553 1 month ago
dumbassery of the group is greater then plain sum of individual idiots.
tcoudi 1 month ago
OMG there is no need for a designer look at it this way painter can create a painting correct logical, then in order for the painter to paint he/she needs to be designed so my question is simple you ask stupid questions so will i. Who created god? your logic indicates that there is always a creator show me who created god do that and i will believe LOL!
shave23 1 month ago
@shave23 Just as I ask you.. who created the first cell? Life only comes from life. Life must have always existed for us to be alive. Right. So thats why God always existed. He is the "life" that always existed. Science hasn't proved life can come from non-living matter.
TheDersek 1 month ago
@TheDersek pay attention to the video and you will see how the first cell and or singled cell organisms come from, in fact two scientist by the name of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey created a experiment to demonstrate that from inorganic material you could form amino acids or in other words organic material so yes science has proven that life could have came from non living matter. Read more pray less.
shave23 1 month ago
@shave23 the soup crap? lol.. It proved to make RNA..but not DNA. Without DNA theres no life. So, sorry, but science hasn't proved that life can happen out of non-living stuff
TheDersek 1 month ago
@TheDersek LOL what are you talking about soup! you obviously have no clue in biology as I mentioned before yes it can.
shave23 1 month ago
@shave23 you obviously don't know much about science. Look up Primordial Soup. And um.. No it has not been proved that life can form out of non-living matter.. whats wrong with you! Look up Biogenesis and Abiogenesis. Biogenesis is proven. Abiogenesis is not. Simple biology.
TheDersek 1 month ago
@TheDersek you serious,DNA is made of nucleotides which are your sugar phosphate and base bonds with in the DNA these molecules consist of much smaller molecules called amino acids which formed from inorganic material. without amino acids you cannot have DNA or RNA not even a nucleotide without amino acids. This is very strong evidence that most of you amino acids arose from Earth's primitive climate which was demonstrated by Urey and Miller. I know simple biology obviously not for you.
shave23 1 month ago
we dont 100% no how things were made but dosnt matter will just masked that by saying a magical human being created everything because thats the logical answer :/
shave23 1 month ago
lol... Reily 7:47 - that's where my faith arrives... from reason!
anirvanroy84 1 month ago
Science is just too complicated for some people. Let them believe in their invisible friends.
tlabuscagne 1 month ago
i make love to my jesus every night right after i watch mr.rodgers with my pep pep. every time i see jesus up on that cross i cant help but think that he looks kind of hot. mi mo mo
tylernew24 1 month ago
uh no one can fuck with the dawkins
MastrBlastr318 1 month ago
7:29 here we go again LOL
mrnolan91 1 month ago
Comment removed
mrnolan91 1 month ago
Comment removed
mrnolan91 1 month ago
Kirk Cameron has little knowledge of biology and chemistry...so one should not expect him or o'reilly to get their primitive heads around scientific evidence and data. Evolution is fact and theory but there is still many unknowns or holes in the theory. Evolution disproves in someways the monotheistic approach to describe how the universe and life started via genesis, which is nothing but a fairy tale. But a designer universe is still on the cards and one should keep an open mind
givemeblowjob69 1 month ago
“My friend Ray Comfort has produced a powerful piece of media that leaves a lasting mark on your heart and mind. ‘180’ is 33 minutes of video adrenaline, shock, and hope. As defenders of the unborn and messengers of the Gospel of Life, we need to see this video and share it with as many people as we can.” Kirk Cameron - Actor and TV Co-host
check out 180movie.com or 180 movie on you tube
standingontruth1 1 month ago
Whats the point in insulting Kirk? Looks more like the "creator" of this video is owning up to being a douche. Some people would take the data you have presented of evolution (100% believable might I add) and use it to TRY to prove the existence of God, but I agree with hitchhikers guide on that logic. Proving God exists would actually prove that he doesn't exist and by that standard, proving he doesn't only makes it more likely that he does. :D
Kelly4Constitution 1 month ago
The theory of evolution is just dumb. I mean come on what person with an IQ above 15 could believe such utter shit!? Darwin was a good sketch artist but but knew fuck all about what he was drawing. At the end of the day the evolution theory is just an idea that atheists hold onto so that they don't have to face reality. But ignorance won't save them.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus I bet your one of those people that think evolution is a monkey having a human baby or some stupid crap like that. For you to say crap like that toward a scientist without any evidence or an argument just shows your ignorance. Do you actually know the science behind evolution? If you want act like you know what your saying then you better actually know what your talking about. Evolution is not an idea, it's science! Science works regardless if you believe it or not.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 There is no evidence for evolution. That is not science. Science is about coming up with hard facts example: 2 + 2 = 4 or the fact: human beings have 2 legs. Where are the missing links? They are missing because they don't exist. How dare people go around teaching this evolution shit as fact. It's fraud. Honestly "this animal magicly evolved into that animal" There is more basis in the belief of santa claus as his character was derived from a real person.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus The definition of science is: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural. "humans having 2 legs" are observations and science is coming up with explanations. Everything in science is made up of theories but that doesn't mean its false. The word "theory" is for some reason associated with a guess, which is wrong. Gravity is a theory and so is evolution. Its ridiculous to question
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 I'm pretty sure taking an observation and coming up with a FACT is science, thus we see the anatomy of a human being and can conclude knowing the math that humans have 2 legs. Very basic but still science. "evolution" however is making observations but then having no firm basis for factual conclusion. so to replace a firm basis for factual conclusion, evolutionists fill in the blanks with anything they imagine. Telling a really good story doesn't mean it's a true story.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@lasharn07 Why is it not good enough to see things as they are and admit not knowing how we got here? Why is it so important to know everything, even if it means making up stuff? Evolutionists are self assuming and arrogant. Most people don't know exactly when and under what exact circumstances they were conceived, so how can anyone claim to know how the entire human race began. Be humble in knowing that you know very little about little and nothing about alot.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus Are you kidding? Scientists are the first to admit they don't know something because any ethical scientist strives for the truth and discovering how our universe works. The truth is, is that science still has a really long way to go. We learn and discover more about the universe as time goes by. Christians are self assuming because they believe in a ridiculous story with no credible evidence. We're not making stuff up, we're coming up with explanations which we base
lasharn07 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus on scientific experiments, data, and taking many, many samples. Sure, scientific theories can change over time but these changes are only very small. The whole general principle is correct and I bet in a thousand years the theory of evolution will be similar and accepted as truth. You said: "telling a really good story doesn't mean it's a true story". well that is exactly what Creationism is. Evolution is backed up by science whereas creationism has no credibility
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 Isaiah 40:22 describes the Earth as being a circle. This thousands of years before Europeans still believed the Earth was flat. But I'm not out to prove the Bible is true or that God exists. If God exists and it was his will, he could prove his existence on his own. The theory of evolution is going nowhere anyway, all that's happened is an accumulation of so called scientific evidence that really hasn't furthered the case for evolutionists.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus By that logic, God doesn't exist as he hasn't proven his existence. Also, people like you are close-minded because it seems that you, like many, many Creationists sincerely put your faith into denying evolution no matter how much evidence, all of which are credible, we present. You deny evolution without any argument or evidence of your own to back it up. Also, how can you say its going nowhere? Its discovering more about life and science=progress for humans.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 If God exists why should he prove his existence to those who deny him? Maybe if you seek him out, he will make himself known to you. If God exists, do you think he reaches out to those who call his book "nonsense"? There are more important things than science itself. IF evolution is the truth, what would it matter? Not a dime or nickel. My main problem with "evolution" is not the theory, it's that it's force fed as fact when it is just an idea.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus How many times have I said this to people? Tell me your argument which is evident that evolution is incorrect because the evidence for evolution proves it is fact. Evolution is an idea that has been proven fact. Everything in science began with an idea. What would it matter you say? Well progress in science is discovering the truth and explains how everything works. This is how we progress as intelligent species.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus As a matter fact, God is an idea. Man has created thousands before. What makes you think your God, if any, is real? If God was real wouldn't it make more sense for him to have an obvious and important role in everyone's lives? Shouldn't he make his presence obvious to all people so that on judgement day we can be tested solely on how good we have been as a person instead of if we believe of his existence?
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 "evolution" would no doubt take millions of years. There are countless species on earth that require their entire biological system to function simultaneously. Eg, a certain bug may have a defence mechanism that protects it from predators, this bug didn't have millions of years to evolve it's defence otherwise it would have been eaten to extinction by it's predators sometime during it's supposed evolution. "
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@lasharn07 "evolution" takes to long, by the time a species evolves to adapt to a certain environment, the environment has already changed numerous times. There are places on earth that have conditions only suitable for particular animals, animals that would have had to by your theory "evolve" to live there. However these places were drastically different only thousands of years earlier. Too short a time for species to have "evolved".
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@lasharn07 It's a fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution. The environment and habitat changes far more rapidly then evolution could take place, thus cancelling it out as a possiblity. For a species to evolve it needs conditions to remain the same for a very very verrrry... long time. Time the Earth just hasn't given.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus
couple quotes from various articles which sums up what my refute would be: "Natural selection was not always a matter of ‘survival of the fittest’ but also survival of those most adaptable to changing surroundings."
"Evolutionary adaptations are caused by some force of natural selection such as environmental change, predation or anthropogenic disturbance."
So, one of the reasons species evolve is because the environment is constantly changing.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus Humans are particularly good at adapting based on the environment. Here's another article quote: "the evolutionary enlargement of the brain relative to body size, was especially pronounced over the past 800,000 years, coinciding with the period of strongest climate fluctuation worldwide."
So it was BECAUSE of climate change our brain size increased and we were able to process info better.
Your argument isn't a flaw with evolution but a justification.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 Last time I looked in a dictionary, adaptation was not the definition of evolution. I agree the theory of evolution does require a species to adapt. However there is so much more needed for the theory to even be plausible. Enlargement of the brain is not quite the same as growing wings or extra legs. We see adaptation everyday, people that live in sunny climates are usually darker skinned than people in cold climates.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@lasharn07 Despite our adaptation to various climate conditions our DNA structure remains the same. Growing extra limbs would require a restructuring of our DNA. Simple mutations would not suffice as evidence either. Take the peppered moth, it was thought that during the industrial revolution the black moths outnumbered the lighter moths because pollution caused the trees to be covered in soot, giving the black moths better camoflauge.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus Ok, I'm sure there must be other examples where circumstance allowed a certain species to thrive. I don't disagree with you on that. For example food availability is a factor for most species to thrive. However, although certain circumstances will allow a species to do well, it doesn't mean evolution doesn't occur. So how can you say mutations won't suffice as evidence when the example you gave didn't even support your argument?
lasharn07 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MiccusMaximus You said:"Despite our adaptation to various climate conditions our DNA structure remains the same. Growing extra limbs would require a restructuring of our DNA."
You actually think that? WOW! Of course our DNA structure is still the same. It always has been a double helix shape and always will be. Its what MAKES UP OUR DNA that changes our aesthetic or functional features. Changes to the genome sequence in our DNA can cause us to, as you say, "grow extra limbs"
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 Was this natural selection? Was this evolution? No. Further analysis revealed the population ratios of black and lighter pepper moths varied in different regions and the colour of trees was not a factor. Sometimes light moths outnumbered the black population. Mutations aren't proof anyway as they are simply a multiplication of genes, not a complete restructure of DNA. Even if the visible outcome seems quite different.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus Ok. we'll end this on a mutual agree to disagree as internet arguments are really ineffective no matter how good or bad one side is. The end results of arguments like these is actually nothing. Internet arguments are the most pointless things but entertaining nonetheless. I am from Auckland, New Zealand by the way.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 To illustrate: what happens when you mix red paint with blue? You get purple paint. A noticeable difference but still just red and blue paint. A little extra red may give you a more maroon colour but again it's still just red and blue paint. Mutations work in much the same way. "evolution" if possible would basicly require, again to illustrate: mixing red and blue paint but then getting the colour green. Just ain't gonna happen. Never did.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus Yeah your example is not an example of evolution. However, evolution is not the only way to adapt to environment. For example, a lot of humans wear spectacles because our eyes are eyes go bad. Or back in those cave man days we create tools to hunt or we make clothes to keep us warm as our bodies haven't evolved to be able to survive in the cold. That's acceptable as there is no such thing as a perfect species. I never said adaptation defined evolution. Its just part
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 what about eskimos.
HaydenDrist 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus of it. Actually mutations are changes in the genomic sequence. IDK where you got multiplication from. Mutation is one process for evolution. There is also adaptation, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and speciation. Mutations is a very vast topic (I admit I don't much about it) and there are so many ways it can affect, structural, functional aspects of all species. Just go on Wikipedia, it covers it all. BTW your illustration isn't applicable 4 mutations
lasharn07 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus as you haven't really understood what mutations are. Your argument doesn't even support either side because what you have said is that the darker pepper moths survived better because of circumstance and then you say that in the end this circumstance (polluted trees) had no affect on the population ratio as it turns out that the light to dark ratio still varied. So ur example was NOT a mutation and it DIDN'T really change anything. So what was your point meant to be?
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 My bad, I assumed you knew of the peppered moth case as it is/was widely refered to as evidence of evolution. This is because the black moths are a mutated variation of the light peppered moths. My point with the paint illustration, is in fact quite accurate. You see mutations do occur but this is only a "shuffling" or multiplication of particular DNA codes that are inherited from parents (much like mixing two paint colours together).
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@lasharn07 However the DNA codes inherited by offspring are merely copies of the same DNA codes in their parents, the codes have just been resequenced. Therefore a species can get quite a variation genetic outcomes but only with the genes available from predecessors. So back to the paint, if you only have red and blue paint available, you can only get a variation of certain outcomes based on those 2 colours. Purple, mauve, maroon and etc.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@lasharn07 But not green as that requires yellow and blue paint instead of red and blue. If the codes aren't there to produce a certain outcome then it won't happen. Even if a species of animal without wings would seem better off with wings, without the codes it can never evolve to have wings. No matter what environmental conditions or any other factors.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@lasharn07 I feel you know there are crucial flaws in the theory of evolution as you have deviated from taking a head on approach with your argument. Any "evidence" you give can easily be explained away with a more plausible answer. Rather than defend the theory as EVOLUTION, you have brought to the fore only the so called evidence that seems to better your argument and ignored other factors that are needed for the theory to work.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@lasharn07 Just take an objective view. If there is no god than surely there's a better explanation than "evolution". There are just so many faults in the theory and remember "it only takes one hole in the hull for the boat to sink". Hope you understand that illustration.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation. Mutations are much more complicated than the paint illustration but I'll try to explain in the next comment.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus You have purple offspring as the parents were red and blue but it is essentially still red and blue (as you said). This offspring mates with someone who had two red parents and the red from the partner is mixed with the red from the offspring to make a red child. For a green child you need red and yellow. So the red child has a mutation caused by either radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, hypermutations that adds yellow. This makes him green.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus Actually, that was poorly constructed. But your paint illustration is saying that you can only get variation of 2 colours (from the parents). In fact, it doesn't illustrate mutations, it only illustrates normal genetic variation in offspring (mutations aren't involved). An offspring has a mix of DNA from both parents (like red and blue paint) and it can mix to make almost infinite combinations. Mutations actually physically change the original color to be anything.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus So what I'm saying is, is that mixing red and blue paint represents normal reproduction. Mutations r changes 2 the genetic code which is like, in the paint illustration, transforming the original red color into somethin completely new. This new color can be mixed with the others and it substantially increases the amount of possible outcomes. So 1 process of evolution is passing down mutations (which potentially change an entire gene) in sex cells through generations
lasharn07 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus You said: If there is no god than surely there's a better explanation than "evolution"
Well evolution is the best explanation that we could possibly have at this time based on extent of human knowledge right now (certainly a lot better than creationism). Science is subject to change over time and these changes can be slight or drastic. I personally think evolution will change but the general principle remains same as that is the nature of biology.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus You also said: "it only takes one hole in the hull for the boat to sink".
Based on that you have justified creationism is completely false as we know the universe and Earth is not 6-10k years old, we know the Sun does not revolve around the Earth and we know that the Earth is not the center of the universe. There are also a mass number of flaws with the global flood (Noah's story) creationists believe happened + others. So the creationist ship has definitely sunk.
lasharn07 1 month ago
@lasharn07 Incorrect. Whilst my paint illustration does also describe normal reproduction. Mutations are inherently the same except for say a multiplication of genetic copies. So instead of inheriting 1 red and 1 blue gene, offspring may get a multiplication of red say x2 and 1 blue. Resulting in mutation. The other circumstances you descibed either aren't going to result in successful mutations or aren't mutations but rather cross breeding.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago
@MiccusMaximus
Actually, depending on the type of mutation and the location of the mutation, mutations produce a completely new and different sequence. Mutations are not inherently the same as normal reproduction. Although using paint is extremely simplistic, infact, yes, it would be closer to a completely new colour instead of the same old colour copied twice. You have a completely new and different sequence, and therefore the colour is also different and new.
tkubok 1 month ago
@lasharn07 Also the description you gave of biblical teachings is very incorrect. Nowhere does the bible say precisely how old the Earth or Universe is. Much of the Bible is written symbolically and should be understood with a degree of reasoning. There is also widespread fossil evidence that suggests the Earth underwent a dramatic climate change like a flood, at the proposed time of the biblical account.
MiccusMaximus 1 month ago