Debunking Evolution: Problems, Errors, and Lies EXPOSED, in plain language for non-scientists

God IS The Creator.

Men lie to desperately try to avoid God.

Nachos, You are accountable to God.

Yup yup.

Ooooh howd you guess my old account was nachos? Are you Jesus?

Unless you're a biblical literalist (And I don't see why you would be, when the bible disagrees with itself sometimes even.) there's no reason you can't have evolution and religion. God created man through evolution: Whatever. I don't think that but it's not an outrageous position. He's got, he could do anything he wants.

Animals which can breed that are not the same species do not produce fertile offspring. I believe we have covered this already.




There is a built in variation in all species that allows them to adapt to different environmental challenges and conditions. In bacteria which are antibiotic resistant, the genetic quality that allows this resistance becomes active, but it was ALWAYS PRESENT and is present in every individual bacteria.

Yes, I am. I have studied biology since I could read and I have an understanding of it that exceeds that of biologists who believe evolution is the mechanism that produces new species.


Well yeah, their genetic code changes, but only to the extent of which qualities are active and which are dormant.

Absolutely correct. the existence of a creator does not preclude the reality of evolution being the origin of species. What does preclude it is a consistent pattern in the evidence, which is completely and utterly devoid of any proof of evolution as the origin of species.

If all Bactria of a species have the same genetics, then why do they transfer genes to eachother with Horizontal gene transfer?

I'll also stop being coy for a moment and state flat out: You're wrong about bacteria all being perfect copies of eachother.

Like any other system in the world, there are errors in DNA replication, which can lead to changes in the cells.

I would like to add that the polarization that is claimed is really not that present.

While all atheists I have engaged claim to believe in evolution, it is only because they precieve opposition to it as religiously inspired and based on the belief of a creator and especially a particular faith. Since atheists are not really just non believers but are in fact more concerned with actively opposing the idea of the existence of a creator and the moral boundaries that come with an existence with meaning and purpose simply because they do not wish to behave in a moral fashion and live within moral boundaries.


. It really has nothing to do with what they have thought out on the subject, they chose evolution because it is anti-creation and anti morality in their minds. the main flaw with this belief is that though religious people tend to discount evolution based on its conflict with their beliefs, people like myself who do not subscribe to any religious dogma including atheism do not believe evolution is the origin of species simply because it conflicts with the evidence and not my religious convictions. I have no reason to doubt the creator could use evolution to create new species. On the face of it it seems sensible in fact, but it just doesn't match well with any of the evidence involved.

I think the important fact that comes out of this is that atheists believe in evolution because of their religious convictions and the fact that they believe evolution explains species in the absence of a creator, and a large percentage of those who don't believe in it at all doubt it simply for scientific reasons.

In other words the main thing that I want to say is that religious dogma and science do not mix because religious convictions guide beliefs and constrain them, and atheism is a faith based religious belief system that calls for specific conclusions in scientific inquiry, and you can see the profound and negative effect it has had. Modern science has become the RELIGION of atheism, and every THEORY that is accepted by the mainstream explains the universe in the absence of a creator or intelligent design. The problem is that everything about the universe indicates an intelligent order and design and the laws of physics support it as well, while these same laws conflict with nearly every mainstream atheist inspired theory like for instance the big bang or the spontaneous generation of life. An atheist can not offer near as much evidence that a creator does not exist as I can that one does, but again it has no place in science!


If academic science set out to prove the existence of creator we probably could succeed in producing a theory that the evidence backing it up would be so convincing that no intelligent individual would doubt it, but as I have pointed out in the past, there is a definite agenda to empower the individual by causing him to doubt his oneness with the creator that he is born understanding, and to cause him to doubt his purpose in existing and the power that comes with creating ones own reality. What I am saying is that atheism is a powerfully negative and evil belief system that needs to be recognized as such ,one that is bent on denying the truth promulgating IMMORAL lies through offical channels such as academia and mass media, and creating a distorted reality because it allows for the ignoring of moral conscience and staying within moral constraints. Look around you at the results of this atheist influence. Every evil thing you can shake a stick at we are suffering because atheists and moral relativists have promoted it, like abortion, sexual perversions being mainstreamed to schoolchildren and children being given to perverts to influence, groom and in many cases sexually use and the feminist movement which has done more to undermine and destoy the social structure than perhaps any other perversion of nature in history. All of these things are birthed by the same people that have perverted science to their own ends, and I am firmly convinced that they (the ones actually at the bottom of it) know there is a creator and know that if they can remove this belief from the peoples minds they can have dominion over them and sell them any bill of goods they want

Do you know what horizontal gene transfer actually means? BASED ON YOUR USING IT AS AN ARGUMENT DEFENDING EVOLUTION BEING ORIGIN OF SPECIES, I CAN'T SEE HOW!

I never said all bacteria are perfect copies of each other, I have said all along that there is in inherent genetic diversity in all species and it is indicative of intelligent design, because it gives the organism the ability to adapt to variances in its enviroment.

. I am also aware there are duplication errors in the genetics of living things, and that they always cause degeneration. My question is, ARE YOU?

But how to you define a "Species" of Bacteria if they don't all have the same Genes. And ones with wrong genes can very easily pass on those wrong genes, especially since they reproduce asexually. So... what exactly makes one bacteria's DNA "Correct" and the other one's "Flawed"

And again, what is "Inherent DNA diversity of a species" when there's no definition of what that species is? Since they can't mate with anything, you can only compare them to eachother. Again... what decides which Bactria has a "Natural genetic diversity" and which is a mutation? Is there a difference?

You're about to be met with "but but but the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trails and and and..."

To which you simply bring up the God hating Stalin, anti-religion Mao Tse-Tung, Poll Pots and more. Then they'll bleet out the age-old; "but you can't tie that to atheism!" Which falls apart from the onset because if acts comitted by atheists cannot be attributed to atheism then acts comitted by Christians or Muslims can't be attributed to them either. It would be hypocrisy.

holy crap.. your head is so far up your ass i don't think it could go any further up.......

I think maybe even you realize the problem here is probably one of a lack of intelligence and a removal of the process of deductive reasoning from the human population.

You seem to realize you are intellectually incapable of debating point by point and threw out a zinger in desperation. The fact is that if you cannot debate on a point by point basic, you don't understand my position or yours. The best thing to do in that situation is simply to shut your mouth and open your mind and try to figure out what the fuck you are on and about instead of acting exactly like a 3rd grader in special education arguing with an enemy on the playground. If you are going to insult someone at least use some original amusing material.

except there are still christians in africa executing "witches" today. and those people you mentioned killed everyone including atheists, their doings were not in the name of atheism.

because they do have the same genetic pattern.



An anomalous dna defect through duplication error or genetic mutation would make one bacteria different from its analogues, it wouldn't actually be an analogue any more, i think that is your point. You also point out a genetic anomaly can be passed to the next generation through fission and dna duplication. Both are true, but what you fail to realize is none of these mutations or duplication errors are ever beneficial and that defect does not proliferate.Natural diversity in the genetic code and duplication error or genetic mutation are not related.

Wrong. There IS still the ability to reproduce and produce fertile and viable offspring no matter what diversity within a species the mating individuals exhibit, and that's what makes them the same species.We are going in circles, indicative of the fact you are trying to confuse the issue or are simply unable to understand what has been said already.



Yes, biologically there is most certainly a distinct difference. A genetic mutation is caused by damages to dna and diversity is not. Diversity helps with survival, mutations are always either harmful or neutral and neutral characteristics have no particular advantage to remain for long.

You cannot debate with people like you, your mind is already made up and since you don't go by evidence its pointless to even try. You are all the same.

So your argument is that all Bacteria have the same DNA, except for the errors who quickly die off.

... But you're wrong, They don't always die off. This is pretty easily provable in that humans make changes to the DNA of bacteria all the time and it doesn't die off. So your argument that any bacteria with a DNA change would die off is wrong.

Beneficial mutations are not a physical or absolute thing, it is relative. There are only mutations, if this mutations helps in this environment it is considered beneficial but it could be considered neutral or negative in a different environment. If this mutation happens in a duplicated gene then it has now gained information as creationists like to put it.

Last Edited by Kakarot_ on 08/03/2015 04:39 AM

The most evil men in history were atheists and nearly all people who have engaged in genocide were inspired by religious dogma. Atheism is religious dogma which is morally relativistic in nature, which translates into whatever suits us best defines our version of morality.There is no reason to endeavor to be decent.

For this reason atheism is the most debase of all religious dogma morally,and the most damaging to humanity and the social structure. Religions tend to add structure to society and inspire a certain moral code, wheras atheism degrades social structure and causes a failure of society without exception in history,

This is correct, but let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there's no such thing as a beneficial mutation. He does at least agree there are neutral mutations.

SO, if a bacteria gains a neutral mutation, and it passes on that neutral mutation, is it a new species?

I think I have done a pretty damn good job of explaining my position and what it is. On the other hand, other than you disagree with me it is impossible to tell what your position is because you can't or won't try to debate your position. I am not precluded by dogma of any kind to disbelieving in evolution as the origin of species, to me it seems stupid to think evolution and the existence of a creator are mutual exclusive ideas. I don't believe evolution is the origin of species because the evidence does not indicate that it is.

You,re unable to debate your position and thats because the only reason you believe in evolution is because it is the atheists explanation. You don't understand the science at all.

No, because the neutral mutation has no effect. The genetic anomaly does not proliferate or describe a discrete species, it will simply be present is some examples and not in others, but will have no effect on the organism. It would be akin to adding the word "The" to the beginning of the following sentence :

"Atheists are proponents of an illogical and irrational religious dogma that denies every piece of evidence discovered by scientific inquiry and actually denies the scientific method could possibly work in discovering or defining our universe ."


Negative mutations are self limiting. They die out because they are not able to cope. Neutral mutations have no effect.

But adding "The" to it still makes it a different sentence.

Again, if the DNA of the Bacteria can be different, then how is it the same bacteria? What defines it as belonging to that species? You can't say "All the Bacteria have the same DNA" because they don't.

You can't be for real.





I believe in this unique case a bacteria presenting a genetic anomaly that is neutral in nature it would be impossible to differentiate it from others of the same species. The insertion of the word "the" might change the sentence but it does not effect its meaning or allow you to identify a difference in its meaning. In the same way a neutral mutation has no effect on an organism, that's why it is called neutral in the first place. If there was a such thing as a beneficial mutation, in all the years men have been studying genetics I am sure they would have identified at least one. But alas, they have never done so.

Again, there are totally beneficial mutations. I listed them already, not going to bother again.

And, AGAIN, you're still not telling me how you define as Bacteria has belonging to a species if even it's genetics can change. How many "Neutral" changes will it take for you to recognize a bacteria as a new species? One? Ten? A hundred? Remember, a bacteria with a genetic change can gain an additional genetic change just as easily.

Like Bacillus pumilus and Bacillus subtilis. They're both Gram-positive, both Rod-shaped... They have a few different, but we've established we can't rely on just genetics to determine what is a species and what is not, since genes can change. In fact they think that 90% of the genes aren't even important, with the cell functionally identically even when they're removed.

So AGAIN, What is a species?

No you are wrong. A neutral mutation in humans would be the mutation that gave some population blue eyes. A beneficial mutation in humans would be the mutation that protects the individual from malaria, if they were in a location where malaria cases are high. There is also that mutation that stopped people from getting heart disease.

Last Edited by Kakarot_ on 08/03/2015 05:25 AM