Debunking evolution

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nyarlathotep's picture
Wow you switched from 100,000

Wow you switched from 100,000 years, to "lots of time" to 1 billion years. Hey what is 4 orders of magnitude among friends?

mykcob4's picture
You can't when an argument

You can't win an argument when your agreement is based on false data no matter how hard you try. Your argument/s are based on false data. That is evident to the most casual observer. That is why you have been requested to get an education. Despite what you have said or will say evolution is a fact, and the earth is about 4 billion years old given the tried and true science. You can't interject this nonsense pseudo-science that has been conjured up by people that aren't really scientist and have an agenda. The first thing anyone must do to prove a theory is have their results verified by independent means. Secondly you must eliminate all variables to get a true reading on the results. Science and real scientist do that. Third you can't have an agenda. You can't fit the process to a predetermined outcome. All your data is designed to fit a predetermined outcome because it has a specific agenda. Your data is invalid. Your sources must be invalid, given that you refuse to reveal your sources. You just make blanket statements and demand that we accept them. One poster on this thread has been successful in refuting every one of your assertions. Yet you do not accept the facts, but instead just keep on interjecting blanket and false statements. Your statement about sea mud is ridiculous. It isn't valid in calculating the age of the Earth. Your idea of temperature over time is also invalid because you dismiss all the contributing factors. Your dismissal of carbon 14 dating is pure nonsense. They idea that there is no uranium rocks left is so stupid it defies belief. You haven't even addressed the fact that DNA proves evolution and that is just one FACT that you ignore. So when you want to get serious, when you have factual data instead of blanket statements, when you can provide sources, reliable sources, then you can debate/argue. So far you haven't refuted anything other than the fact that you have no real knowledge to offer.
here is a website that explains in very simple terms how scientist determined the age of the earth and the initial mistakes they made. How they finally were able to accurately measure the age of the earth.

Here's a site that explains carbon dating:

More sites of interest:

Gabriel Michael's picture
You're assuming there false

You're assuming there false because you are close minded have you ever thought once that your theory might be wrong. You call yourself a Skeptic but you're never skeptical of the evolution theory. Your friend couldn't answer this question there is oli under the earth this oil is under 20000 psi of pressure scientists say the rocks cant take this pressure for more than 10000 years so why are the rocks still under pressure hmm?

CyberLN's picture
Wow! Where the hell are you

Wow! Where the hell are you getting that psi figure for underground oil?

I've said before t before, I'll say it again: get a real education!

mykcob4's picture
1) I am not close minded. 2)

1) I am not close minded. 2) Your assertions are false as they have already been disproved. 3) I didn't call myself anything. My friend ( I don't really know the person other than this forum so that is another assumption you are making.) Answered every question you actually asked. 4) The oil pressure claim is false. Also oil underground isn't in liquid form anyway. It's a solid and can withstand much more than 20000 psi for far more than a million years, maybe even billions of years let alone 10,000. Besides oil is organic and it doesn't describe the actual age of the earth at all. It only describes organic life on earth.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Still having a hard time

Still having a hard time understanding your claim about oil pressure. But for what it is worth: oil deposits migrate, so there is no real correlation between the age of some given oil and the age of the deposit that oil is in.

Imagine if that logic was used in daily life:

Person 1: Check out my new garage, I just finished building it last week!
Person 2: Dude, there is no way that garage is only a week old, it has a 1965 Mustang in it!
Person 1: Yeah, see cars move so there is no relation between the age of a car and the structure in which you find it.

mykcob4's picture
Another failing that Jam Jam

Another failing that Jam Jam makes is his lack of staying on the issue. He jumps around to other false assertions instead of actually ever answering any questions asked of him. A common tactic used by children who can't answer the question put before them.
As far as "debunking evolution" it's a fail, and if that is Jam Jam's best shot than he is rather weak and immature.

Gabriel Michael's picture
God bless you im sorry for

God bless you im sorry for calling you close minded ill give you a few videos to watch that debunk evolution remember watch the whole thing if you have time including you narlothop Creation Seminar 1 - The Age of the Earth (FULL) …:
Creation Seminar 2 - The Garden of Eden (FULL) Ke…:
Scientific Proof That Hell Exists:

Nyarlathotep's picture
Wow, when the other posters

Wow, when the other posters accused you of parroting Kent Hovind I thought they were just being silly. Egg on my face; the first two videos you linked were Kent Hovind, the convicted fraudster, liar, and tax cheat. I will not be watching those; I've seen other videos from him (perhaps even excerpts from what you linked), and even read his doctoral dissertation.

From the third video:
1: First off I laughed at the title, but I'll be nice and assume he meant he was going to provide some kind of scientific evidence for hell.

2: At 5:28 he describes an area of the Earth at 1900K as 'paradise'. To put that in perspective, steel melts at about 1600K. Science fail.

3: At 8:25 he said "in geometry a bottomless pit is the center of a sphere". Math fail!

4: At 8:53 he tells us that no one could have possibly known that under the surface of the Earth was hot liquid. People have known about lava since before history, so of course this is false. Common sense fail!

5: At 11:49 he tells us that lake of fire (which he claims is hell, but also claims it not hell, don't ask me) is actually the surface of the sun! I'm not going to address the veracity of this claim, just thought people would find that interesting/funny. In his defence he cloaked this statement as 'his theory'.

6: At 11:59 he claims that if you have rain, you have a lake. Geography fail.

7: At 15:54 he says the surface of the sun is a liquid. Science fail.

I wasn't surprised that he did not 'scientifically prove that hell exists', or supply evidence in favor of that claim. What did surprise me though: he didn't even try! Whoever labelled that video is a liar, but I'll give the speaker the benefit of the doubt that someone else labelled his performance that way. It was just a sermon to the faithful, nothing else.

Dave Matson's picture
I never read Hovind's

I never read Hovind's doctoral thesis, but I do remember a photo of it. It looked like a cut-and-paste job that you might expect of a high school sophomore! Needless to say, his "PhD" was one of those wonder productions from a diploma mill.

Gabriel Michael's picture
God bless you im sorry for

God bless you im sorry for calling you close minded ill give you a few videos to watch that debunk evolution remember watch the whole thing if you have time including you narlothop Creation Seminar 1 - The Age of the Earth (FULL) …:
Creation Seminar 2 - The Garden of Eden (FULL) Ke…:
Scientific Proof That Hell Exists:

mykcob4's picture
Are you kidding me? That is

Are you kidding me? That is your proof Kent Hovind a known fraud? Try again, this time use a credible source not just some fraud that never proves anything. And don't condescend to me with "god bless you." That's nothing but an insult. There is no god to bless anything.

Kent Hovind believes that man lived with dinosaurs for no less than 6000 years. That right there should tell you he is off his rocker.

Satan was god's choir director? He just makes shit up and gullible people like you eat it up. How pathetic.

In all the videos that you provided NOTHING I mean absolutely NOTHING is proven. No facts, no science, no independent supporting research....NOTHING. Just some fraud ranting a stream of consciousness that isn't proof of anything at all. he prefaces every claim he makes with totally discreditable claim. Like "for years man did not know there was liquid below the surface" That is totally false but we are supposed to accept that as fact.

So try again junior you totally shit the bed on this attempt.

Gabriel Michael's picture
And ill refute your DNA claim

And ill refute your DNA claim In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates).

Gabriel Michael's picture
And ill refute your DNA claim

And ill refute your DNA claim In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates).

CyberLN's picture
The bacteria would have

The bacteria would have changed as much as, say, the horseshoe crab?

3rd time may be the charm....get a fucking education!

chimp3's picture
Look at that. A 250 million

Look at that. A 250 million year old bacteria! The Lazarus bacteria is actually quite amazing . Far , far more amazing than that idiotic story about the "Great " Flood and all of us being related to 8 incestuous sailors:

chimp3's picture
I am sure that Jam Jam will

I am sure that Jam Jam will go away from this encounter feeling vindicated. However I do not believe he has convinced any sheep to follow his tinkling bell. I found this on Patheos :

So , Jam Jam : Was your statement about there being no uranium in rocks meant to ask why there is still helium in the rocks?

This from Ken Ham (The guy that thinks the Flintstones is a documentary) :

"Consider the research from the creationist group Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) concerning the age of zircon crystals in granite.3 Using one set of assumptions, these crystals could be interpreted to be around 1.5 billion years old, based on the amount of lead produced from the decay of uranium (which also produces helium). However, if one questions these assumptions, one is motivated to test them. Measurements of the rate at which helium is able to “leak out” of these crystals indicate that if they were much older than about 6,000 years, they would have nowhere near the amount of helium still left in them. Hence, the originally applied assumption of a constant decay rate is flawed; one must assume, instead, that there has been acceleration of the decay rate in the past. Using this revised assumption, the same uranium-lead data can now be interpreted to also give an age of fewer than 6,000 years."

if you are going to join the debate team and argue pseudoscientific nonsense you should at least get your errors straight!

Gabriel Michael's picture
I got a question for all of

I got a question for all of you how do you tell right or wrong without the bible?

CyberLN's picture
If you want to change horses

If you want to change horses in mid stream, start a new thread for it.

mykcob4's picture
Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!

Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!! You are assuming that people need a mythical being to dictate the question of morality. We have discussed morality on the forum exhaustively. Morality comes from society NOT from religion. The number one demographic of people arrested convicted and serving sentences is christian....OVERWHELMINGLY! So you can throw out any hope that your god is a good moral code. To act like a christian is to harbor racism, genderism, false patriotism, sexism, homophobia, murder, war, waste, self entitlement, pollution, irresponsibility, genocide, theft, fraud, separatism, rape, discrimination, corruption, cronyism, revisionist history, pseudo-science, and basic immoral behavior.
So don't hand me this crap that the bible teaches and is the sole arbiter of morality. That is a flat out lie!

chimp3's picture
Jam Jam : Are you admitting

Jam Jam : Are you admitting your failure to debunk evolution ? If not please continue . If you want to change the topic to morality it is best to start a new thread. Morality without god is one of my favorite topics but I will not respond here.

Dave Matson's picture
If you need a Bible to tell

Jam Jam,

If you need a Bible to tell you that murder is wrong then you are in sorry shape!

This is the wrong thread for your new topic.

charvakheresy's picture
@ Jam Jam : I might be

@ Jam Jam : I might be nitpicking here but what does evolution have to do with thorium in rocks or mud at the bottom of the sea. evolution is not the theory of geology or rare element. It is like saying I will prove this watch does not work because my dog ran away. The two things are not connected.

Evolution is a theory that explains diversity of life. NOT the origin of life. we have a wide variety of living organisms because they evolve.

What is your evidence against the Theory of Evolution. If you ay there is not enough thorium in rocks or mud on the sea floor or any other such unrelated claim that by the way is unsubstantiated (by unsubstantiated i mean you need to show me the reference article in a reputed scientific journal) is nonsense as evolution does not speak of mud on the sea floor or thorium in rocks. Dating techniques have found the age of the earth to be over 4 billion years old and that fits with the time line presented in evolution.

First to disprove evolution you need to show where evolution falls short in its ability to explain diversity of life.
let me argue in favour.
1 - Viruses and bacteria gain resistance to immune mechanisms and antibiotics by evolution. for example influenza virus or MRSA etc.

Now i am sure you will tell me that this is microevolution and not macro evolution so I would like to ask if you believe that is true tell me where does microevolution end and macroevolution start.

2 - vestigial organs and structures like the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

3 - The fossil record.

Once again I would like to iterate that to say there isn't enough thorium in rocks or mud on the sea floor has nothing to do with evolution. You may say that our dating methods are incorrect but that is false as your claim is not substantiated by any scientific community. Our dating methods are accurate with an acceptable margin of error and our dating methods puts the age of the earth to 4.6 billion years which provides sufficient time for evolution to work in.

Yet a change in date does not disprove evolution but rather would suggest evolution works faster or slower to propagate inheritable characteristics. To disprove evolution you must disprove its ability to explain the diversity of life.

I hope you understand what I am trying to get at. If i could give an example, what if I were to say christianity is not true because hindus don't eat beef. to any theologian it would seem absurd but I would draw the connection that a good and great god would have made all religions similar and if their tenants aren't similar then they are untrue. Yet to you it would seem ridiculous to compare the 2 arguments. Hinduism has its own belief system and origins and so does christianity. In the same way geology and the biology of evolution and for that matter astronomy are very different disciplines to say that an unsubstantiated (and it is unsubstantiated) claim in one debunks a theory in an unrelated and totally different discipline is wrong.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Charvak - "I might be

Charvak - "I might be nitpicking here but what does evolution have to do with thorium in rocks or mud at the bottom of the sea. evolution is not the theory of geology or rare element."

I think I can answer that for him. His argument seems to boil down to "X demonstrates the Earth is less than Y years old, and you need more than Y years for evolution to be the cause of species; therefore evolution is not the cause of species (insert god here)". Clearly I don't agree with the details of his argument, but I believe that is the form.

charvakheresy's picture
Nyarlathotep :

Nyarlathotep :
His argument is flawed on so many levels.
He starts off by saying he will debunk evolution but talks nothing about the theory of evolution.
His only way forward is to say that there wasn't enough time which dating methods prove is wrong. So to counter he does not prove those dating techniques wrong (which it would be difficult to do considering they are very accurate) but proposes a newer technique that is imprecise and unsubstantiated (Mud on sea floor) and some outlandish claim about not enough thorium (I guess he does not understand the concept of half-life ). which is still just an attempt to debunk dating methods.
I want to know what are his arguments against evolution itself.
If he is referring to abiogenesis - that is a complete different hypothesis.
Does he mean to say that evolution is a perfect explanation barring the time required?

Dave Matson's picture
Jam Jam,

Jam Jam,

CyberLN and Nyarlathotep are absolutely right. Biological evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis; it begins where abiogenesis leaves off. Apparently, you know nothing about evolution which can be a problem. How would you even know if your sources are respectable? It looks like you are recycling "Dr." Kent (Dino) Hovind's stuff which was taken mostly from Dr. Henry Morris (a real PhD this time), and Henry ripped it off of George McCready Price who was an early pioneer in scientific creationism. The bankruptcy of Hovind's arguments may be found at: and the other sites that have been given to you. Do check them out before tossing more candy at us!


In your probability argument concerning iso-1-cytochrome c (the one with 75 zeroes) you forgot to give us the mathematics, hence no argument was initially advanced. Later, you referred us to an Institute for Creation Research (ICR) site. I've seen a number of these kinds of probability arguments, including an earlier one from ICR. Having a degree in mathematics (with emphasis on probability and statistics) it is easy for me to see that this type of argument against abiogenesis is a load of horse manure. They all violate one or more of the 3 rules that are absolutely necessary for such arguments against abiogenesis.

Rule #1: Matter seldom interacts randomly at the atomic level since atoms combine or break apart according to the rules of chemistry. The water molecules of a lovely snowflake, which may seem to require a master designer, naturally come together (given the right sequence of weather conditions at that location) to form marvelous snowflake designs. If the laws of chemistry are not accounted for, the odds of getting a lovely snowflake might seem impossible. Ignore this rule and the probability argument is utterly worthless.

Rule #2: Is this PARTICULAR molecule even necessary for a cell? Have all the workable variations of that molecule (and there are often quite a few), or even reasonably similar molecules, been ruled out? Is the particular chemical pathway, itself, even necessary? A different chemical pathway doing the same job might not even need that molecule or any of its relatives! We must also consider all possible groups of chemical pathways (and the variations of their key molecules) that can sustain a cell. A particular pathway might not even be needed. But, we can't stop there. We must consider whole life forms. A different version of life might not need any of the above variations at the molecular level! Don't we also have to consider every possible form that arising life might take? Who knows, maybe the first step need not be a cell (as we know it) at all!

To do the calculation right you must know the details of all possible life forms that might arise from non-living matter. After all, if life had taken a completely different course some other creature might now be wondering about the odds. We have to calculate those odds, too! If we fail to do that we are committing the fallacy of calculating the odds after the fact. Here is an example: If you threw a shovel-full of sand on a table, what are the odds that each of those sand grains would have assumed their final positions? Shall we conclude that a miracle occurs every time you dump a pile of sand on the table? Hardly! A proper calculation must consider all of the possible forms and arrangements that a pile can have. We can't throw the dart first and then paint the target so that the dart is dead center!

Our present knowledge of the possible ways that life might arise is way too incomplete to even think about a meaningful calculation of the odds.

Rule #3: The possibility of intermediate stages must be considered. If you calculated the odds of getting a mammalian eye all at once you would find it quite improbable. But, once you realize that there are many intermediate stages that are useful to some creature, somewhere, sometime, then the odds practically melt away! The same holds true at the molecular level. A huge amount of molecular evolution went into the cells we see today, including the more "primitive" prokaryotes (without a nucleus). If your calculation uses one of those evolved molecules, then you have blown it right then and there! By the way, organic molecules usually don't come with little signs indicating how much evolution they have undergone.

Even in the cold depths of space we can find a number of important organic molecules that have formed and are reasonably stable! That was a shocker! And, that material would have been arriving at Earth via meteorites and dust. Charting all these intermediate molecular complexes that might have been reasonably stable in some environment (the surface of clays, Darwin's little pond, space, undersea "smokers"…), at some time, has never been done. Without a thorough knowledge of these intermediate complexes any calculation of the type you gave is meaningless.

Thus, you can consign this impressive-sounding argument to the circular file.


In the light of plate tectonics, this argument is easy to debunk. When an ocean plate dives beneath a continental margin some of its accumulated sediment goes down with it. THE REST OF THE SEDIMENT gets scrapped off and plastered to the boundary of the continent. Most of the coast of California, including the coastal mountain ranges, are largely stuff (including small islands) that got scrapped off an ancient ocean floor that (at that time) was diving below the North American Continent. At some places along the coast of California, right on the beach, you can actually find pillow lavas freshly eroded from a bluff. Pillow lavas originate at the bottom of ocean, at places where the sea floor is pulling apart and new sea floor being exuded. These lavas had traveled a long way before being plastered onto the continental margin. (Care to calculate how long that takes? Forget about 7000 years!)

If you need more insight, we might look at the separation of the North Atlantic basin which created the North Atlantic Ocean. Magnetic dating, the current rate of the spreading, and fossils types all point to this even occurring during the Jurassic period. Obviously, that ocean floor is not going to have billions of years of mud on it!

You may consign this geologically naïve argument to that same circular file.


Around 3.9 billion years ago (roughly when life began to arise) there was 83% more uranium-238 around, and the small quantity of uranium-235 today would have been multiplied some 45-fold. All that extra radioactivity in the rocks (including a significant contribution from potassium-40) would have generated a fair amount of heat and probably meant greater volcanic activity on the whole. Volcanic activity meant more CO2 in the atmosphere. Reasonable models of the Earth's early atmosphere indicate that it could have provided a greenhouse effect good enough to keep things from freezing over. There was even a greater dissipation of tidal energy (still more heat) because the moon was considerably closer. Note that if life arose near undersea "smokers," it would have its own heat supply. The availability of water, minerals, and energy make "smokers" a prime location for abiogenesis.

What might be called the "faint young sun" paradox hasn't been wholly resolved as it is a complex study, but there is scarcely room here for the naïve argument that you, Jam Jam, are giving us! You can't pretend that the Earth had no cloud cover, that elevated quantities of CO2 and methane were absent, that heat from radioactive decay wasn't considerably higher, etc. Those variables, and likely others, make a huge difference!


As Nyarlathotep pointed out, uranium and thorium are still in the rocks and are still producing helium. We still have nearly half of the original uranium-238 in the rocks. Moreover, Jam Jam, your claim that it all leaks out readily is false. A quick visit to tells us that if porous, sedimentary rocks above the source (granitoid basement rocks rich in thorium and uranium) is capped by an impermeable seal of halite or anhydrite, then migrating helium can be trapped and contained and concentrated. Hence, helium is often associated with traps that catch and hold natural gas.

Jam Jam, you need to give us facts and figures. Provide at least a competent summary of your argument, complete with key calculations, or deposit it in that big, round file.


Jam Jam, according to you rock cannot resist 20,000 lbs/square inch for more than 10,000 years. Thus, oil should not be under such pressure today.

If you tallied up the overhead weight of fairly dense rock (specific gravity = 2.8), then 20,000 lbs/in2 would correspond to about 3 miles down. Most oil wells are less than about a mile deep. Where on Earth (literally!) did you find this oil under 20,000 lbs/in2 ? Why should that figure apply to a typical oil reservoir? You need to do some explaining.

Oil is created in what is called "source rock" where organic matter is compressed and heated but it cannot pool there. It must migrate to a suitable area (reservoir) that can store it. Impermeable rock caps the reservoir and prevents further seepage upward. The migration is extremely slow.

"Some idea of the extremely slow speed of fluid motion to be expected can be gained by considering the movement of ground water at shallow depths in dense clays, classed as "impermeable." Under a moderate hydraulic gradient and a reasonable value of permeability for clay, we come up with flow speeds of ground water on the order of 2 to 3 million years per kilometer [3.2 to 4.8 million years per mile]. Yet the permeability of source shales of petroleum is rated at only one-thousandth as great as for clays tested in the surface environment." (Wszolek, P. C., and A. L. Burlingame. 1978. "Petroleum--origin and evolution" In Fairbridge and Bourgeois. 1978. p.573) This source was given in geologist Arthur N. Strahler's book "Science and Earth History - The Evolution/Creation Controversy."

It's not entirely clear to me how the above should be interpreted, but I think it's safe to say that oil migration out of its source rock does not happen overnight! Forget about 7000 years for a typical migration!

Jam Jam, I suspect that you can pitch this "proof" into the circular can as well.


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.