Debunking evolution

85 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jam Jam's picture
Debunking evolution

Hey guys and girls, Im a Christian and I would like to talk about evolution I don't believe in evolution because 1. There is many holes in the theory and 2. Because if evolution is true and their is no God their are many problems with morality, for example how do you tell right from wrong with out the Bible? Anyway here is some of my evidence against evolution Im not trying to offend anyone just sharing my opinion and also I would like to test my evidence so if you want to try to debunk my claims feel free. Anyway here my evidence against evolution, ab-iogenesis and the big bang.

I posted 150 pages of evidence against evolution abiogenesis and the big bang.

But its copyrighted you can find most of the evidence I found on true origins they use non-creationist references.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

ThePragmatic's picture


Alembé's picture
Hi Prag,

Hi Prag,

I thought what does "TL;DR" mean. So I looked it up. Thanks for enlightening me. I concur.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well you now hold the record

Well you now hold the record (as far as I can tell) for the single greatest act of plagiarism on the forums. While I'm not going to track it all down, big chucks of that came from

And I have little doubt if I kept checking the rest came from somewhere as well.
If you are serious about having a conversation, I'd be willing to address some pretty serious problems with what you have copied. But somehow I doubt you are.

Jam Jam's picture
Everything I got is from true

Everything I got is from true origins. Answers in genesis is unreliable and probably all of the things you stated is probably garbage resources. I used non-creationist references.

Ps be nice all I did is try to debunk evolution I didnt be mean to you in anyway and I didn't mean to offend you. Please tell me the problems you can find and we'll debate (respectfully)

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jam Jam - Everything I got is

Jam Jam - Everything I got is from true origins.

Much of what you posted came from Answer in Genesis. It even included footnote markers to their footnotes, and worse it contained the alt-text html elements to their images. Furthermore, one paragraph contained a word I was not familiar with, and according to google, that word only appears on one website: a page from Answers in Genesis. When I checked that page it was the exact material you pasted.

This makes your following statements problematic:

Jam Jam - Answers in genesis is unreliable

Jam Jam - I used non-creationist references

Based on that I have to continue to assume you are not serious. You need to come clean if you want to have any chance of being taken seriously. But to be frank with you, it is probably too late at this point. You have already shot yourself in the foot, twice.

Jam Jam's picture
Ok first of all of ture

Ok first of all of ture origins information is posted by people with PHDs and such I know that doesn't mean anything but true orgins take all the reliable evidence some of it from answers in genesis the observable testable proven evidence against evolution like this for example:

Deleted the text copied ffrom on another site - CyberLN

I admit some of answers in genesis is unreliable. But not all of it.

CyberLN's picture
Jam jam, I deleted more text

Jam jam, I deleted more text you copied from another site. If you violate copyright law again, I will ban you from AR.

Jam Jam's picture
Sorry about that can you

Sorry about that can you delete this forum about debunking evolution I came here to debate but people are just being mean to me not answering my questions and calling me a liar please delete this post please im really sensitive and im not a sponge for insults

algebe's picture
@Jam Jam: "im not a sponge

@Jam Jam: "im not a sponge for insults"

Just turn the other cheek. .

Atheists are used to insults. We get insults and discrimination from Christians all the time. The one about having no morality without the bible is really getting old.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Its a good point. He comes

That's a good point. He comes here and tells us that we have no morality; then proceeds to plagiarize 150 pages of other peoples work, violate copyright laws (at least twice), and post multiple misleading pieces of information about his "sources". If that is what morality looks like from god, you can continue to count me out.

Nyarlathotep's picture
If you don't want to be

If you don't want to be called a liar, you need to stop saying things that are false (or worse, contradicting yourself). I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings; but if you thought you were going to have a serious conversation about this, and not be held accountable for the information you posted, then I think you might be... well damn I don't know what to say without saying something else nasty...

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jam Jam -

Jam Jam - all of [true] origins information is posted by people with PHDs

So i went to true origins and checked 2 random (just me clicking on the middle of the page) articles. Both were written by people that it seems don't have PHD's. By my count this is your 3rd or 4th strike.
These were the two pages (in case you want to demonstrate that I'm wrong, although based on my findings I have no doubt I could find dozens if I was spend more than a couple minutes on it):

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well I found my first article

Well I found my first article on trueorigins that is from someone with a PHD. It was written by the creationist Jonathan Sarfati. Of course this contradicts what you told us earlier that trueorigins does not use creationist sources. Strike 5?

Jam Jam's picture
Not all of the articles are

Not all of the articles are written by people with PHDs but on a more serious note you said you can't take me seriously and you said that you can find problems with the arguments I found so tell me the problems with this argument

Nyarlathotep's picture
Not all of the articles are

Jam Jam - Not all of the articles are written by people with PHDs


Jam Jam - all of [true] origins information is posted by people with PHDs

So now all that remains is for you to apologize for lying to us.

Dave Matson's picture
Wow! Our research librarian

Wow! Nyarlathotep, our research librarian at work!

chimp3's picture
That is not an attempt at a

That is not an attempt at a debate. That is terrorism. Life is too short .

Alembé's picture
Hi Jam Jam,

Hi Jam Jam,

I wonder, how much of that do you understand? Before we go on, just to demonstrate your bona fides, I have a question for you to answer.

Elemental carbon is essentially insoluble in both water and organic solvents, yet it is the basis for aqueous life and organic chemistry. How come?

mykcob4's picture
Not worthy of my time!

Not worthy of my time!

Jam Jam's picture
I can tell you don't believe

I can tell you don't believe in God and think there is no God and I believe you seem certain there is no God. I have one question for you. How do you know there is no God? I mean humans know only 0.0000 and so on .1 of information of everything even if you know 99.999 and son on you still couldn't be certain that their is no God. Sorry I just wanted you to know

Question_everything's picture
It is possible that a god

It is possible that a god could exist. However, you are the one making the claim that the Christian God exists. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

Sky Pilot's picture
It's up to the God creature

It's up to the God creature to prove to humans that he exists. So far not one god of any kind has ever done anything godly since the first con man created him.

Dave Matson's picture
Jam Jam,

Jam Jam,

Certainty only applies to mathematics, chess, and other purely logical systems. In the real world certainty is not the yardstick. The yardstick is credibility. That the sun will rise tomorrow is highly credible--but not 100% certain. In evaluating the God hypothesis, some of us have carefully studied the arguments for God and found them wanting. There are also some strong arguments against the God hypothesis. See my thread "Science Gives God The Bump!" (08/07/2016 18:47). As others have pointed out, it is no more our job to disprove God than it is to disprove the Easter Bunny! No beef, no belief! Make your case if you have one, but do it on another thread.

Truett's picture
Jam Jam, you've stated that

Jam Jam, you've stated that you don't think evolution is correct and think that without god there would be no morality. But you've provided what someone else thinks about evolution and immorally committed a copyright violation. Not a good start, Jam Jam.

There is a sound basis for evolution that several of us can describe, and we can direct you to trusted sources with demonstrable evidence. If you're genuinely interested I will contribute to the discussion.

There is a sound basis for morality without a celestial dictator as well. A very small example is that in controlled experiments species, especially non-human higher primates, have acted against their own self interests and their own survival to spare others pain.

I realize that it is difficult to consider the absence of god when there is a risk of making a mistake and winding up in hell. But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, and if you can allow yourself to honestly evaluate I'm confident that you will recognize that. Let me/us know if you're willing to talk, and I'll interact with you.

Jam Jam's picture
Yes thank you for your reply

Yes thank you for your reply and being kind. I'll be honest I didn't know it was copy righted. You say there is evidence for evolution tell me what and we'll talk. Also their evidence against evolution too which we'll talk about too. Lastly what you think is right or wrong is always different to someone else who thinks right or wrong like take Hitler for example do you agree what he thinks what right or wrong is? He also believed in evolution and killed 6 million people because he thought they were inferior species then him. Anyway much love Jam

Truett's picture
A few points right off: The

A few points right off: The biblical account of Jesus explains that the guilt of his blood is on the "jews" heads' forever. That's according to the Bible. That has been taught for centuries by the Christian west; it was the basis of multiple centuries of the inquisition in its various forms. Antisemitism was extremely prevalent, and hatred of the Jewish people was a driving motivation of Hitler and the population he led. The fact that he was megalomaniacal sociopath who was persuaded by the hatred engendered by Christianity is not helping your point.

Why does an intelligent herd-like species survive? By murdering and sabotaging the tribe members on which their lives depend? How could a mammalian species whose young take 15 or more years to mature survive if the members had no shared duty and responsibility to their fellow tribe members? The early humans were dependent on each other in a hostile, scary world. How do you think they would've made it if they were beasts with each other?

Also, we humans have extraordinary mental capacity with the ability to not only see that our future depends on those around us, we have the capacity to empathize. We can almost feel others' pain. We don't like pain, and we recoil from the thought of it. We are especially sensitive to the pain of those close to us. Infants naturally console someone displaying pain in their presence. This isn't due to Christianity. This is innate. Do you think that the Israelites were ignorant of the basic requirements of existence before they made it to Mount Sinai?

We have become better in time. Through our interconnectedness we are becoming much less tribal and hostile to non-members of our immediate groups. That is not at all attributable to god or jesus or the bible. The idea that the eternal fate of your children's souls depends on separating yourselves and being holy and ensuring that no one dissuades you from the gospel of christ is not a recipe for global civility. It is a recipe for the horror that humanity has endured.

You argue that morality is dependent on god. Re-read the Old Testament. Open it and really read it and tell me that again. And if you argue that the new covenant in Christ's blood has replaced the Old Testament then you're willfully ignoring the fact that the reported words of Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and James all direct their readers to the relevancy of the Old Testament.

Jesus supposedly saved us from the introduction of sin by Adam and Eve, an introduction that ushered in death. How, Jam Jam, do you account for the horror of the Permian Extinction? What was that? We see that the planet was heavily populated by advanced mammal-like reptiles, then the Siberian Traps eruption occurred and 98% of life died. And it went on and on and on for millions of years, with the worst lasting over 60,000 years. How does the salvation of christ and the defeat of death have anything to do with that?

You are believing a book that is so wrong it is dizzying. Not just Genesis. I'm urging you, re-read what you're advocating with the same kind of critical eye you use when you consider investments or decide on brand of toothpaste. It is not a moral book, and it does not describe what we know about reality.

Jam Jam's picture
Firstly I would like to start

Firstly I would like to start off by saying jesus died for our sins not so we don't die yes you might say there is lots of suffering like world hunger and war but thats not gods fault thats our fault people made kids in Africa starve its not gods fault for that and same with war Hitler was not a Christian he in fact he mocked the Christians for not choosing the swastika over the cross. That leads me to my argument against abiogenesis and talks about missing links have a look at this article much love: Jam

Truett's picture
You've not attempted to

You've not attempted to address my argument. Instead you mention that your brand of human sacrifice is the ticket to immortality. Don't you think that the story of hell is scary and that rational people have looked into it? You're telling me what some Junior High level Sunday School teacher would say. That you've used "hitler" as an argument against a-biogenesis indicates that you're not applying your critical thinking faculties to this conversation. I have spent a fair amount of time studying the bible and considering what we know about reality. You give every indication that you have not. My earlier argument stands and I'll reply if you seem serious. That doesn't appear to be the case right now.


Attach Image/Video?: 

Jam Jam's picture
You didn't answer the

You didn't answer the argument I had against abiogenesis look at the article it debunks abiogenesis and if theres no abiogenesis there is no evolution

Truett's picture
Hi Jam jam, I'm hesitant to

Hi Jam jam, I'm hesitant to proceed because you largely ignored my argument to you. But here goes:

Jam jam: Firstly I would like to start off by saying jesus died for our sins not so we don't die
Truett: I suppose you're referring to my immortality comment. Jesus repeatedly says his followers will have eternal life in heaven. I'm guessing that you will agree that the supposed jesus said that.

Jam jam: yes you might say there is lots of suffering like world hunger and war but thats not gods fault thats our fault people made
Truett: I agree with you that suffering isn't god's fault, and it's not Zeus' fault or Odin's fault or Apollo's fault. So we have something we agree on. But then you say it is peoples' fault. So when convection currents in the mantle of the earth causes earthquakes, sunamis and volcanoes it is humans' fault? Earthquakes on earth are no more our fault on earth than on unihabited planets. It is a normal condition for a rocky planet like ours. Earthquakes don't punish anyone; they're natural AND THEY CAUSE SUFFERING. Suffering can be man's fault' but its outageous to categorically state that suffering is man's fault. You have no sound basis to make that argument or response.

Jam jam: kids in Africa starve its not gods fault for that and same with war
Truett: Right! No god caused or noticed or had anything to do with suffering or anything whatsoever. So far so good on this one.

Jam jam: Hitler was not a Christian he in fact he mocked the Christians for not choosing the swastika over the cross.
Truett: Hitler ordered that EVERY member of the German military wear a belt buckle with the words "GOD WITH US". Hitler had prayers said for him on each of his birthdays by the Catholic Church. (The Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler, by the way. They did excommunicat Goebbels, his exceedingly cruel trusted henchman. Not for the death camps, no. Goebbels was excommunicted because he married a non-catholic. The Catholic church was willing to excommunicate powerful people if the circumstances warranted it. It's just that the gas chambers didn't warrant excommunication.) Hitler was not an Atheist. He followed a Nordic pagan type warrior-messiah type faith instead and saw himself as a saviour figure. Hitler had religious artifacts searched for across the world for their mystic powers. You haven't read much history of Hitler. He was not an atheist; Hitler had Atheists killed.

Jam jam: That leads me to my argument against abiogenesis and talks about missing links
Truett: Humanity, through the use of the scientific process has built an extraordinary picture of what has preceeded us and we are further building out our picture of the past every day. There are ever smaller patches where we don't have a complete picture, and superstitious religious people point to those shrinking patches and say "look! There is a mystery! That proves god did it!) A-biogenesis is one of those shrinking patches. We have used DNA genome sequencing from a vast number of species to build a robust picture of the evolution of life all the way back to the earliest single cell organism, but we don't have hard proof of its state from the time it was a self-replicated model until the first DNA molecule evolved. This is a huge area of current study, and the likelihood is that the RNA World Hypothesis explains a great deal of that pre-DNA existence. Oxford University has a lot on this, and many other Ivy legue universities. The bottom line is that RNA is far simpler and can perform the basic functions needed, albeit not as well as DNA. If you need more info on that either I or someone else in this forum can send a link or two to you. And on "missing links", you wouldn't say that if you could allow yourself to step out of your sphere of faith for just enough time to see the fossil evidence and what we've learned from comparing DNAA with other life on this planet. We humans are not just related to other primates, we are related to every life form on this planet. You and I and our parents and pets and apple trees and shrimp and single cell bacteria all have a single common ancestor. It is demonstrable. Meaning it is proven. I am not an expert so I will need to point you toward people who know. And millions of scientists who are competing with each other and trying to better understand reality are not part of some unbelievably large conspiracy to act like god didn't create life.

Now, please do the same thing for my argument to you, at least to some extent. I'd like to know what we agree on and what we don't.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.