Religious Debate... Again...

Rather than restating what Civ said, I'll just let him handle Ring.

The Pariah wrote:And hell isn't mentioned in the bible at all.

I'll just assume that this is sarcasm. I hope to God you aren't that misinformed. Then again, NT thought the Bible stated that black skin was a punishment for sinners, so who knows...

The Pariah wrote:Arguing against religion with scientific theories is stupid as science adjusts its views on whats observed whereas faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. Its hard to change a persons ignorance...

Well, I'm glad to see we're starting out tolerant of each other, here. Of course, I also haven't seen too much relevant science being thrown around. Lots of bait and switch and other such fallacy that is typical of an evolution debate, but not a lot of actual science.

The Pariah wrote:But arguing against a belief with LOGIC and REASON gives no real basis for them to argue back, like these points;

Oh, this should be interesting.

The Pariah wrote:- Who created god?

No one. Both theistic and atheistic beliefs assume that something has existed for all time. Theists believe that some being, in this case God, has simply always been. Atheists believe that whatever caused the Big Bang has always been. The difference is that atheists claim the high ground of logic in their belief of an eternal object, whereas theists recognize that it is not logical.

So really, your argument here defeats reality, because no matter what you believe, at some point, somewhere, something has to have existed infinitely.

The Pariah wrote:- "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

You seem to misunderstand what evil actually is. What is cold? Is it the opposite of heat? No, it is the absence of heat. What is darkness? Is it the opposite of light? No, it is the absence of light. What is evil? Is it the opposite of good? No, it is the absence of good. God gave humans free will, and because He is a lawful being, he will not infringe on this free will. Humans, then, have the ability to deny God access to their heart, and thus evil is born. If God prevented evil, he would ruin free will.

The Pariah wrote:- Are those who are born into the wrong religion due to their upbringing doomed to hell?

That's a silly question. You could have worded it better, and you might have caught someone less prepared in a logical trap. Sadly, you didn't. Everyone has free will. If you are born into a religion, you will at one point in your life encounter the correct religion.

Now, if you had asked about those who are born into a life where they never hear of the correct religion, you might have trapped someone less learned in doctrine. Sadly, that is not the case here, because I've seen the argument before.

Romans 2 wrote:¹¹For God does not show favoritism.

¹²All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. ¹⁴(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) ¹⁶This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

What does it mean? People who never have the opportunity to convert to Christ are judged by the moral code that all humans are born with. They may not be held under the intricacies of the laws detailed in the Old Testament, but there are some very basic things that all humans identify as being right and wrong. These people will probably be damned, but only because they have done wrong, not under the law, but under their own conscience.

The Pariah wrote:- If a god was omnibenevolent would he really be so petty as to damn one of his creations to hell for not believing in him, after considering that god hasn't once shown himself physically to the person?

Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic Christian doctrine. I'm beginning to suspect that you're just regurgitating what the Internet told you to, and if this is the case, I suggest you find a better informed website from which to eat.

People are not sent to hell for not believing in God. People are sent to hell for sinning. We were given free will, and 100% of the time, we fail when it comes to being good. Sad that all humans were doomed, God created a loophole. Jesus was made human, and of his own free will, he did not sin. He was then executed, and in dying, he paid for all our sins. Of course, as with most gifts, you actually have to accept the gift. You can choose to deny the gift.

The Pariah wrote:- Why did god create the devil?

God didn't create the devil. He created Lucifer, a pious angel who was one of his most trusted officers. Hubris created Satan. Even the angels are subject to sin.

The Pariah wrote:- Why did god create aids and allow the catholic church to disallow the use of contraception?

Are you serious? This question doesn't deserve a serious response.

The Pariah wrote:- Why do baptisms still happen for children if the tale of adam and eve isn't real? Surely its rather sick to claim a new born child is full of evil because it hasn't been dipped in water.

...what? I wasn't aware that Christians stopped believing in Genesis...or that they believed that baptism cleansed sins. It's funny, really. Just a moment ago, you were insulting my ignorance. Now your apparent ignorance of what you're talking about is becoming rather blatant.

The Pariah wrote:- Why do children get cancer?

A powerful question. Probably something to do with the fact that Satan is not some powerless being who sulks in Hell all day. In fact, if I recall correctly, no one actually is in Hell, at this time. Dead spirits go to Hades. Hell, aka the Lake of Fire, will be opened up and the condemned sent there after the Tribulation but before the Millennial Kingdom. It could also have something to do with the fact that pain and death are both wholly human experiences and direct results of sin. It might also have something to do with the fact that we cannot experience joy without pain with which to compare it to.

The Pariah wrote:- And if the watchmaker theory is correct then why are people born with deformities?

I have two words for you: Nick Vujici.

The Pariah wrote:And im fed up of christians trying to prove their god with creationism, i mean even if the big bang theory is false it doesn't at all prove there is a heaven, a hell or a cosmic mind reader in the sky.

I'm sick of that too. There can be no proof. However, you seem to be confused by a simple fallacy. Disproving evolution does not prove creation. The reason I'm going to win any argument we have here is because I am arguing that neither side is certainly true or untrue, while you are arguing that one side is certainly true and one is certainly not true. You are applying a universal, and I am arguing an existential. For you to be right, you have to be omnipotent, because you have to know every possible point. I just have to know that one is wrong, and I am right. Let me break this down into the simplest logic.

P(x): x is certain, where x is a possibility

Ringleader and bilco Argue
∀xP(macroevolution)
∀x¬P(creationism)

Rot and Civ Argue
∃x¬P(macroevolution)
∃xP(creationism)

KristallNacht wrote:you actually covered the 'addition' part earlier. the MUTATION part. MUTATION is your addition. And Macroevolutions 'new species formed from old' is based on a certain level of difference, generally caused by speciation.

Actually, in microevolution, mutation is a change to an existing gene.

KristallNacht wrote:You wouldn't say that dolphins and porpoises are the same species, but theres a high probability that, when traced back, they came from the same species. Does that mean both are the same? or that there were two identical species before?

much like you wouldn't say a flying penguin is the same species as a nearly identical flightless penguin, even if all the flying ones died off and only the flightless ones remained.

Curious, really. I wonder, at what point did that ancestor split into two species unable to breed with fertile offspring? Because while they may be very similar, their genetic code is incompatible. And the mutations required to achieve one from the other are not the sort that you could effect over time.

Microevolution is the belief that, over time, the value of a chromosome pair can be altered.

Macroevolution is the belief that, over time, the function, order, and number of chromosome pairs can be completely altered. These kind of mutations, because of their nature, would have to be abrupt, and would likely produce undesirable effects. You can't add a chromosome pair over time. It's either there or it isn't. And such an extreme change would immediately make the mutant unable to breed with its own kind, and thus unable to reproduce. Effectively, these kinds of mutations cause their victims to be sterile. Not exactly good when you're trying to say that they went on to create an entire new species.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
I'll just assume that this is sarcasm. I hope to God you aren't that misinformed. Then again, NT thought the Bible stated that black skin was a punishment for sinners, so who knows...

the mark of cain. It's all about how you interpret it. and it was, very often, interpreted as such.

as for reference, the bible makes very VERY few mentions of anything resembling hell, and many less by name, and absolutely never makes any mention of any 'hell' in any context that isn't specifically threatening.

and when it comes to satan, the references are even more confusing, as Lucifer is a latin name, which didn't exist at the time the old testament was written, and in the original Hebrew, the story was about a Babylonian king and not an angel at all.

Rotaretilbo wrote:No one. Both theistic and atheistic beliefs assume that something has existed for all time. Theists believe that some being, in this case God, has simply always been. Atheists believe that whatever caused the Big Bang has always been. The difference is that atheists claim the high ground of logic in their belief of an eternal object, whereas theists recognize that it is not logical.

So really, your argument here defeats reality, because no matter what you believe, at some point, somewhere, something has to have existed infinitely.

We accept the high ground because we have scientific proof such as the red shift, theists however do not but i wont go into that.

Rotaretilbo wrote:You seem to misunderstand what evil actually is. What is cold? Is it the opposite of heat? No, it is the absence of heat. What is darkness? Is it the opposite of light? No, it is the absence of light. What is evil? Is it the opposite of good? No, it is the absence of good. God gave humans free will, and because He is a lawful being, he will not infringe on this free will. Humans, then, have the ability to deny God access to their heart, and thus evil is born. If God prevented evil, he would ruin free will.

You failed to address natural disasters.

Rotaretilbo wrote:That's a silly question. You could have worded it better, and you might have caught someone less prepared in a logical trap. Sadly, you didn't. Everyone has free will. If you are born into a religion, you will at one point in your life encounter the correct religion.

Now, if you had asked about those who are born into a life where they never hear of the correct religion, you might have trapped someone less learned in doctrine. Sadly, that is not the case here, because I've seen the argument before.

So you really think that if you were born in ancient greek you wouldn't be worshipping Zues?

Rotaretilbo wrote:What does it mean? People who never have the opportunity to convert to Christ are judged by the moral code that all humans are born with. They may not be held under the intricacies of the laws detailed in the Old Testament, but there are some very basic things that all humans identify as being right and wrong. These people will probably be damned, but only because they have done wrong, not under the law, but under their own conscience.

So i noticed you quoted the old testament on sinning... does that mean pescetarians are all going to hell?

Rotaretilbo wrote:Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic Christian doctrine. I'm beginning to suspect that you're just regurgitating what the Internet told you to, and if this is the case, I suggest you find a better informed website from which to eat.

People are not sent to hell for not believing in God. People are sent to hell for sinning. We were given free will, and 100% of the time, we fail when it comes to being good. Sad that all humans were doomed, God created a loophole. Jesus was made human, and of his own free will, he did not sin. He was then executed, and in dying, he paid for all our sins. Of course, as with most gifts, you actually have to accept the gift. You can choose to deny the gift.

And it seems you misunderstand the holy trinity and dont realize that what you just said was that god killed himself to save us from the doom he gave us originally... right...

Rotaretilbo wrote:God didn't create the devil. He created Lucifer, a pious angel who was one of his most trusted officers. Hubris created Satan. Even the angels are subject to sin.

Then why did he create lucifer?

Rotaretilbo wrote:Are you serious? This question doesn't deserve a serious response.

Completely serious.

Rotaretilbo wrote:...what? I wasn't aware that Christians stopped believing in Genesis...or that they believed that baptism cleansed sins. It's funny, really. Just a moment ago, you were insulting my ignorance. Now your apparent ignorance of what you're talking about is becoming rather blatant.

You believe in genesis? LOL! And yes i was taught by my catholic school that baptism cleanses people of their sins so that they may be saved.

Rotaretilbo wrote:A powerful question. Probably something to do with the fact that Satan is not some powerless being who sulks in Hell all day. In fact, if I recall correctly, no one actually is in Hell, at this time. Dead spirits go to Hades. Hell, aka the Lake of Fire, will be opened up and the condemned sent there after the Tribulation but before the Millennial Kingdom. It could also have something to do with the fact that pain and death are both wholly human experiences and direct results of sin. It might also have something to do with the fact that we cannot experience joy without pain with which to compare it to.

How can you not see how retarded that idea is?

Rotaretilbo wrote: Nick Vujici

He has a nice career for himself considering his condition.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I'm sick of that too. There can be no proof. However, you seem to be confused by a simple fallacy. Disproving evolution does not prove creation. The reason I'm going to win any argument we have here is because I am arguing that neither side is certainly true or untrue, while you are arguing that one side is certainly true and one is certainly not true. You are applying a universal, and I am arguing an existential. For you to be right, you have to be omnipotent, because you have to know every possible point. I just have to know that one is wrong, and I am right. Let me break this down into the simplest logic.

I am well aware of pascals wager and i honestly dont care much for an argument when it comes to science as i have clearly said...

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Actually, in microevolution, mutation is a change to an existing gene.

not necessarily, its simply that one of the CAGT changed into another.

rot wrote:Curious, really. I wonder, at what point did that ancestor split into two species unable to breed with fertile offspring? Because while they may be very similar, their genetic code is incompatible. And the mutations required to achieve one from the other are not the sort that you could effect over time.

Macroevolution is the belief that, over time, the function, order, and number of chromosome pairs can be completely altered. These kind of mutations, because of their nature, would have to be abrupt, and would likely produce undesirable effects. You can't add a chromosome pair over time. It's either there or it isn't. And such an extreme change would immediately make the mutant unable to breed with its own kind, and thus unable to reproduce. Effectively, these kinds of mutations cause their victims to be sterile. Not exactly good when you're trying to say that they went on to create an entire new species.

There are species that don't require a male to breed, as well as species with the same number of chromosomes that can't reproduce. I haven't looked it up, but its likely there are species that have erroneous chromosomes that, in the beginning of that mutation, may have not been technically required to reproduce.

Much like the false stories of donkey's and ligers being infertile, as they have reproduced in rare cases.

Ugh, typed up a rebuttal but left PC on overnight and Windows update rebooted without saving progress...

I hate the dumbing down of Windows, so much!

KristallNacht wrote:the mark of cain. It's all about how you interpret it. and it was, very often, interpreted as such.

Interesting. Last time, you claimed it was one of Noah's son. However, as with last time, you failed to read the passage.

Genesis 4 wrote:¹⁰The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. ¹¹Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. ¹²When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

¹³Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. ¹⁴Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

¹⁵But the LORD said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. ¹⁶So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

As you'll notice, no reference at all to black skin. As far as I know, as I said last time you brought up this hilariously errant point, the only people who ever believed anything like this were the Mormons, who most of the theists here on TCF are openly critical of.

KristallNacht wrote:as for reference, the bible makes very VERY few mentions of anything resembling hell, and many less by name

Probably because the word "hell" doesn't appear in the original text, because it is an English word. Between Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus, and the Lake of Fire, Hell is probably mentioned by name some 60 odd times in the Bible.

KristallNacht wrote:and absolutely never makes any mention of any 'hell' in any context that isn't specifically threatening.

That's actually untrue both technically and literally. Both Sheol and Hades are generally noted as neutral places in which souls await judgment. No threat there. Further, Hell is not a threat. It is a destination that you may choose not to go to.

KristallNacht wrote:and when it comes to satan, the references are even more confusing, as Lucifer is a latin name, which didn't exist at the time the old testament was written, and in the original Hebrew, the story was about a Babylonian king and not an angel at all.

Generally speaking, prophecy in the Bible is generally regarded to have two applications: a short term and a long term. It is generally believed that the passage referring to the Babylonian king, who is sometimes translated to be Lucifer, is also referring to Satan's fall from grace. However, forgive me for using basic doctrine. If you want, I can refer strictly refer to scripture. References to Satan are hardly confusing. There just isn't a lot of material that directly talks about him. It is, however, made clear that he currently still has some access to Heaven, that he can walk the Earth freely right now, and that he has some power or ability.

The Pariah wrote:We accept the high ground because we have scientific proof such as the red shift, theists however do not but i wont go into that.

I don't see how the existence of red shift proves or disproves religion. The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn't specify how exactly he went about this.

The Pariah wrote:You failed to address natural disasters.

I would refer you to one of Satan's many titles: the Prince of the Power of the Air.

The Pariah wrote:So you really think that if you were born in ancient greek you wouldn't be worshipping Zues?

I didn't say that at all. I said that a person would either have the opportunity to convert at some point in their life, or they would be judged according to their conscience.

The Pariah wrote:So i noticed you quoted the old testament on sinning... does that mean pescetarians are all going to hell?

Uh...first of all, Romans is in the New Testament.

Second of all, what does not eating meat have to do with this at all?

1[sup]st[/sup] Corinthians 8 wrote:⁸But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

But let's assume you actually knew what you were talking about and had brought up eating animals deemed unclean in the Old Testament. It really doesn't have too much to do with salvation. People who are saved are not bound by the law. Whether or not they eat unclean animals does not matter. Meanwhile, people who are not saved are going to Hell, whether or not they eat unclean animals.

So yes and no. Some Pescetarians are going to Hell, but some are going to Heaven.

The Pariah wrote:And it seems you misunderstand the holy trinity and dont realize that what you just said was that god killed himself to save us from the doom he gave us originally... right...

What? I don't appear to be the one who has no grasp of the Holy Trinity here. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all one being, but they are different aspects of that being. So, in a manner of speaking, yes, God killed himself to save us from our doom, but it was a doom we brought on ourselves. God cannot be in the presence of sin, because sin is the absence of God. Thus, sinners cannot enter Heaven. It isn't God's fault that we sin. It is our own fault.

The Pariah wrote:Then why did he create lucifer?

That's a good question. I don't pretend to know why God does some things. Of course, ultimately, it is as empty a question as asking why God created humans with free will. If you know for certain that someone will do something wrong, is it just to punish them before they even consider doing that thing?

The Pariah wrote:Completely serious.

Sigh. The Catholic church has the free will to do whatever it pleases. God didn't make them do anything. AIDS would probably fall under my answer to cancer.

The Pariah wrote:You believe in genesis? LOL!

I'm glad that, at the very least, I've entertained you. And, take heart, for your bigoted ignorance has certainly amused me.

The Pariah wrote:And yes i was taught by my catholic school that baptism cleanses people of their sins so that they may be saved.

Baptism is a public display showing that you have been saved that is analogous with the death and resurrection of Christ. The Catholic practice of baptizing babies, and frankly, the entire doctrine of the seven sacraments, is not based in the Bible. If I recall, it comes from one of the various Apocrypha.

The Pariah wrote:How can you not see how retarded that idea is?

How can you not see how retarded any belief other than pure agnosticism is? I recognize that my belief is not provable. I won't take the high ground of reason, because I know that it is reserved for agnostics, who actually abide purely by logic and reason.

The Pariah wrote:He has a nice career for himself considering his condition.

Deformities do not damn you. God has a history of using people who we would not expect to do powerful things. Someone like Nick is the perfect example of this.

The Pariah wrote:I am well aware of pascals wager and i honestly dont care much for an argument when it comes to science as i have clearly said...

I wasn't even referencing Pascal's Wager, actually. It is an interesting point, but not one that I was trying to bring up. I was simply asserting that atheism is just as irrational as theism, and that you are more irrational than I, because I subscribe to an Existential while you subscribe to a Universal.

KristallNacht wrote:There are species that don't require a male to breed

And so some minor degree of macroevolution among these species might actually be possible. But it wouldn't explain how life came to be as it is now, as eventually, you would need for macroevolution to occur in sexual organisms.

KristallNacht wrote:as well as species with the same number of chromosomes that can't reproduce.

That is where function and order come into play.

KristallNacht wrote:I haven't looked it up, but its likely there are species that have erroneous chromosomes that, in the beginning of that mutation, may have not been technically required to reproduce.

Much like the false stories of donkey's and ligers being infertile, as they have reproduced in rare cases.

And in any of those extremely rare cases, were any of the offspring ever fertile? Were they even fully formed?

I think the church of the flying spaghetti monster is pretty cool.

Man, we haven't had a religous debate with Rot full swing since the old Existence of God thread.

I miss these super long mutli-quotes.

Anyway, I'm going to side with Rot on most of these.

Some things I'd like to put in.

In Islam, it is believed that Satan was an angel, just like the rest. And then when god made man, he demanded that the angels bow to his new creation.

Satan was a rebel, and saw humans as a inferior race made from dirt and that the angels were better and made from fire.

Btw... the clay and fire thing are actually a rough translation of the Quran, which implies that the clay represents the color of our skin and fire as sorta something like pure energy.

KristallNacht wrote:you actually covered the 'addition' part earlier. the MUTATION part. MUTATION is your addition. And Macroevolutions 'new species formed from old' is based on a certain level of difference, generally caused by speciation.

I think you missed what I was getting at. When a member of a species gets a beneficial gene through mutation and survives to pass it on, that gene is dominant. Eventually, the whole species gets that gene. The problem here is that you changed something; you didn't add to it. The result was a single, more improved species instead of two separate species. That is the difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro deals with changes while macro deals with creation.

The Pariah wrote:And it seems you misunderstand the holy trinity and dont realize that what you just said was that god killed himself to save us from the doom he gave us originally... right...

Yes. God is purposely dooming people for the lulz. That's exactly what we've been saying this whole time. Glad you finally caught on.[/sarcasm]

The Pariah wrote:Then why did he create lucifer?

Why does he need a reason? I don't know about you, but I'd get pretty board if I was an omnipotent being with nothing but... well... nothing.

The Pariah wrote:Why did god create aids and allow the catholic church to disallow the use of contraception

You must be copying these from somewhere, because I answered this a few posts before you said it.

CivBase wrote:The Pope is not the envoy of Christ. According to Catholic faith, the Church is infallible in its interpretation of the Bible. Catholic faith does not dictate, though, that the word of the Church (or Pope) is the word of God. That's what the Bible is for.

The Pariah wrote:You believe in genesis? LOL!

...you're quickly becoming more and more insulting and less and less intelligent with your posts. It's a bad idea to go into an debate with the notion that your opponents are idiots. Unfortunately, that is the whole premise of Atheism, which is why I dislike it. Atheism is in no way scientific; it is a refusal to accept a viable option, which is counter-scientific. The only view on creationism that can be called scientific is Agnosticism.

But... oh well. I believe you were the one who said "It's hard to change a person's ignorance."

The Pariah wrote:And yes i was taught by my catholic school that baptism cleanses people of their sins so that they may be saved.

Baptism is not some magical ordeal that absolves you of sin. That is what repentance and forgiveness are for. You can't just have the Pope bless your bathtub and expect to be sent to eternal paradise.

The Pariah wrote:How can you not see how retarded that idea is?

Point made. Honestly, how can you not see how retarded you're acting? I'm happy that you're back and all, but I'm tempted to infract you for your blatant disrespect.

two seperate species can come from macro evolution


just because a new trait is beneficial DOES NOT mean that the old species dies out entirely... and that trait does not nessicarily have to end up in the entire gene pool of the original species.

the old species dont die out... new mutations of sepcies with mutations that are detrimental to survival do die out, thats where branches end on the evolutionary tree, but the original species from which other species evolve usually not only persist, but sometimes last longer than the new species itself.

As long as the mutation is not a detiment to survival then it will be passed on, and new species are formed, not every mutation is one that improves the species

Except that changing a single value on a single chromosome pair isn't going to create a new species at all. It's just a different variation of the same species. Going with my previous analogy, people with red hair are not a new species of human. They just have a different value in the handful of genes that handle hair color.

The problem then, is that even if you change every value of every chromosome pair, you've not changed the species. In order to change the species, you have to change what the chromosomes do, what order they are in, or how many they are (or, in most cases, some combination of these). These kinds of changes can't happen slowly like natural selection does.

Let's say we have Artiodactyla, the hypothetical forerunner of deer and giraffe. Now, let's say that Artiodactyla resembles a deer. Let's say that one group goes off on its own to another region, where long necks are advantageous, while another stays put. The group that left will probably slowly mutate to have longer necks, until they have really long necks. But, aside from problems actually committing the deed, these long necked Artiodactyla will genetically be the same as the regular Artiodactyla that stayed put. No matter how severe the value of the chromosome pair that handles the length of the neck is changed, the two will still be the same species. They'll just be different breeds, so to speak.

KrAzY wrote:two seperate species can come from macro evolution


just because a new trait is beneficial DOES NOT mean that the old species dies out entirely... and that trait does not nessicarily have to end up in the entire gene pool of the original species.

the old species dont die out... new mutations of sepcies with mutations that are detrimental to survival do die out, thats where branches end on the evolutionary tree, but the original species from which other species evolve usually not only persist, but sometimes last longer than the new species itself.

As long as the mutation is not a detiment to survival then it will be passed on, and new species are formed, not every mutation is one that improves the species

This still doesn't explain why there aren't a ton of bridge species, though. If original species persist so well, despite mutation, we should have a variety of animals so vast that it is nearly impossible to categorize them.

Why did every single one of humanity's ancestors die out? This question could apply to almost any species; not just humans.

for humans in particular there is strong evidance that WE killed off the majority of the other top runners... there are also environmental conditions that cause problems and weed out which mutations are beneficial or not... the Ice Ages significantly weeded out other species of hominids

and Rot, for the genes, no, a single change in a single gene does not equal a new species if the single gene that was swiched was for hair color... but in a mutation it is not just single pairs of genes that get swiched. you could make the argument that because changes are slow and all building off of the same things over time that they are all the same species, and just different breeds... thats a definition of species, not of evolution as a whole... the classifications of species is just for categorization, there are technically no different species of animals.


the amount of time it would take for a significant difference in a population of animals to consider them a separate species would be over tens of thousands of years... interbreeding between similar "bridge species" that are compatable with eachother would homogenize, until a new mutation pushed out another branch on the tree...

but your right civ, if animals never died, didn't eat eachother, and the earth wasn't a truely inhospitable place to try and exsist on... there would be a HUGE number of species...

and before you say "but why havn't we found fossils of all these species" ... new fossils are discovered on a daily basis... also the conditions for a fossil to actually be preserved are exceedingly rare... its highly likely for most species that show up on this planet for only a short while to leave very little evidence of their exsistance.

This^

It's estimated that Caucasians have 5% Neanderthal genes.

Just want to point out there is more simple gene switching when it comes to mutations, as Krazy hinted at. There are single gene deletions, switches and mismatches, but we also have much larger chromosomal mutations which are again the addition of part of a chromosome or of an entire new copy (Trisomy =having three chromosomes instead of 2 which is the cause of down's syndrome). Or deletions which give rise to another defect.

As for this point, yes mutations do shape evolution, as a species mutates to adapt to deal with external pressure, we see it all the time in bacteria and growing drug resistance, as the susceptible are killed of and the resistant survive and become more viable. This does not all mutations do so, a lot of evolutionary cul de sac' and lead to that creature to die. It's a highly random process and not all species make the grade when a massive shift in their environment occurs. That's why the dinosaurs died out, while the mammals survived as they were better suited to survive the cataclysmic event before it event happened.

'Atheism is in no way scientific'

This is why the argument is completely retarded and reminds me that a pig farmer never tells his pigs their breath smells like shit.

hmm...how come we've never had an argument about whether or not the bible can even be trusted?

isn't that the first step in christianity, is justifying that the bible can't possibly be wrong?

Here's an example of Macroevolution occurring right before our very own eyes!

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/evolution-peppered-moth/

The Pariah wrote:'Atheism is in no way scientific'

This is why the argument is completely retarded and reminds me that a pig farmer never tells his pigs their breath smells like shit.

Actually...

Atheism is the "belief" that there is no possible way deities exist. Which is not scientific at all. If anything its just a blind as you claim religion of being.

The more scientific approach is Agnosticism, which states that there is no proof yet to prove the existence or none existence of deities.

I see no god, thats an observation. science draws conclusion from observation. i conclude that because i have only been told there is a god then there is not a god.

The Pariah wrote:I see no god, thats an observation. science draws conclusion from observation. i conclude that because i have only been told there is a god then there is not a god.

Observations are different from evidence.

But to throw in my opinion on Atheism...

There's two kinds of Atheists.

Either their smug-ass peeps who think all who follow religion are stupid.

or

They call themselves Atheists, but they're really Agnostics.

but evidence is an observation. (however observation is not always evidence)

Baconsen wrote:

The Pariah wrote:I see no god, thats an observation. science draws conclusion from observation. i conclude that because i have only been told there is a god then there is not a god.

Observations are different from evidence.

But to throw in my opinion on Atheism...

There's two kinds of Atheists.

Either their smug-ass peeps who think all who follow religion are stupid.

or

They call themselves Atheists, but they're really Agnostics.

I suppose there is no middle ground for atheists?

if you are "Middle ground" athiest then you are agnostic


any possibility of belief that there MAY be something there, but you want scientific proof, thats agnosticism

thats what I am...

Pariah, Baconsen is right, we aren't a-celestial teapotists, or a-bigfootists, because those things very well may exist somehow, but its not scientific to start out with the assumption that they don't exist.