Bad as he was, at least he was a better actor than he is a logician.

Here’s Kirk’s powerful scientific argument to prove the existence of God:

“Darwin said in order to prove evolution, which is the #1 alternative to God, you’ve gotta be able to prove transitional forms. One animal transitioning into another. And all through the fossil record and life, we don’t find one of these…a croco-duck.”

Hey, Kirk… why don’t you hold up an actual photograph of God?  What?  You don’t have one?

You see, Kirk is displaying his own ignorance of what evolution is, in order to strike it down as an untenable theory.  No scientist — ever — has suggested that transitional forms involve the melding of two present-day animals from entirely different species. 

There are, however, many fossil records of animals that have features of both reptiles and birds — the Archaeopteryx, for example, was a bird, which had many features of reptiles, including fused trunk vertebrae, teeth instead of a bill, pneumatic bones, and so on.  Furthermore, on a molecular level, today’s crocodile has more in common with a chicken than it does a viper.

Sorry, Kirk, but the facts are more convincing than your Photoshop skills and amateurish logic.

Kirk’s other argument boiled down to this: "Hey, I see a painting, so I know there must be a painter.  I see how complex the human body is, I know there must be a designer."

It’s one of those mindless circular arguments built on the foundation of one’s own ignorance — i.e. — "since everything I know has a designer, then man must have a designer".  In other words, I’m ignorant about what I know, so I’ll extrapolate that ignorance to everything else."

Well, Kirk.  Here’s a relatively simple explanation (in two parts) of not only how it could happen — but how it actually did happen — without a designer (or, if you prefer, with a designer who pulled the strings of evolution):

Now go away, Kirk.