Sorr y for the late reply, I don't post at work anymore (new years resolution :]) and was playing DDR like an animal.

The thing is I get this, I get the watchmaker analogy. If you noticed, nowhere in the convo did I just chalk it up to god. If we backtrack, it was dsgrue who asked me what made me believe it was God, and I gave him the problem of the likelihood of abiogenesis (a probability concern), and then he asked me for others so I gave him the combo of inbreeding, which leads to genetic defects, and the speciation concern (which I was calling cross-breeding at the time). I mean I have the ideas, but I might just not use the right terms all the time. That's ok, I'm human right, I can err. But what is mind-blowing is how I've been pegged an imbecil ITT because I'm asking questions. This far, you are the only one who actually stooped to my "ignorant" level to actually answer the questions I'm asking.

Tbh it's not that complex. Imho, I find it all pretty intuitive. However, it doesn't mean I buy it.

Here, we know from fruit flies that inbreeding leads to genetic defects, and that it is not a good idea to dilute the gene pool. In a speciation scenario, granted it is a continuum ok I understand that, but as time progresses and as evolution works its magic, the compatibility of the individuals amongst the new pockest of populations decreases. As such, the body of eligible individuals for that species proper is reduced. How then does the theory account for the problems that inbreeding causes?

this only matters if those populations were small enough that they'd be forced to inbreed at some point, and that the populations will not grow past that point later.  Sure if you have 10 eligible mates in the population then pretty quickly you run out of possibilities and someone is going to have to sleep with someone related to them by a few generations back or so, but if you have 100 by the time anyone is forced to sleep with someone at some point related to them the inbreeding will be so distant as to be inconsequential.  Sleeping with someone who shares a Great Great Great Grandmother doesn't really matter too much from a genetic standpoint.    

I can appreciate that.

All it took was a straight answer, it's all I was asking for.

You're a smart guy tor, but Runa said it would be like Einstein having to explain to a kid. Was it really that hard and was my question really that stupid?

This all ties back to OP. In the mean time I got food for thought, which is good, but it's a pity it took so long to make it here having to go through all kinds of branches and accusations before making it to my actual questions and concerns.

That's my answer to OP, e.g. I wish there were more people behaving like Tor from the opposite current of thought (opposite from mine, which is a creationist background) and less people behaving like dsgrue and yes, Runa (his bad side).

Tor, now let's ask the honest questions.

In the very origin of species, the very first species beyond the cell, how did the gen pool prove resilient against the inbreeding problem of genetics?

At the very first moments of speciation when you needed two individuals to procreate?

What about the gene that dictates breeding?

Here's where I'm not very knowledgeable. I know that the cell multiplies, so there is no concept of inbreeding for cells. I'm assuming the same applies to bacteria amiright? Then, what do we consider the very first species proper and do all species breed?

I'd lie if I said I didn't learn something from you throughout the thread, but your insults have, overall, made my chat with you feel like one of the biggest wastes of time I've ever experienced.

That's because you made me feel insulted and kept trying to put me down. Is there something you need to boost in yourself such that you need to put others down and laugh at them and shit?

I thought so.

 I was very calm at first, simply told the mods to deal with you and they did. Then, I stooped to your level and I regret it. It's a shame I don't have more self-control. But you, dsgrue, you are the reason why Christians remain ignorant. Because people like you alienate them from their right to learn, even things that MAY not be true. Tap yourself on the back and enjoy your thumping on the believers, I'm sure you'll feel very accomplished by the end of your life.

The answer to OP is simple.

1) If the inception of the world cannot be explained by naturalistic causes, it is quite possible that it was conceived by metaphysical causes.

Existence being a concept that fringes reality, it is not asking so much.

2) A Christian simply cannot believe in the bible if the world can be explained without God, because if the world can be explained by naturalistic causes then God is a liar. Plain and simple.

happydolphin, This is why I kept saying this thread was a non-discussion...a few other people have come to mention this too. I think it's pretty obvious where most people's agendas are, including yours. I learned more about the psychology of the people involved than actually the topics... this thread puts education and open-ness to learning to shame.

dsgrue... really? You might want to really consider if you might have a narcissism problem. I mean that in the best possible way. If someone feels so comfortable with themselves enough to call someone a fool and tear them down everytime someone disagrees with them in a discussion, that is not an admirable quality or strong quality in a person. If that doesn't even stop you, then that just proves my point. Your argument method has been supported by mainly bully and ridiculing into your discussion and you have absolutely no empathy for anyone you berate. I can't understand how your self esteem could handle it if you were actually able to let anyone be on equal footing with you. I mean, beyond you 'bestowing' the honor to someone by merely having a conversation with them and taking your time... we should be so honored to not be insulted and to be given due credit... Really?

This is part of why I walked away from the discussion, because I felt like there was a lot more going on than just a religions versus atheist thread. Obviously egos super involved here. I mean I kept thinking to myself, this thread was being kept open by squatters... waiting for the next fly to swat! Moreover, there is soooo much fixation on what was 'absolute'... which science is the most absolute way of viewing things/analyzing information, I agree. However, we can't ignore other people's viewpoints when we start to form our own. That is just reality, everyone has multiple ways of interpretting matters in life. I get people are angry. I get angry too. Everything's stupid! (haha) I get science is being 'threatened' by religious zealots who use bible quotes to support ridiculous theories that threaten people's wellbeings. However, the world is more complicated than that and for the most part, multiple belief systems and ways of doing things can co-exist well... at least in an American society

There were also a few times people were getting bent out of shape because of religion that they never saw there were a few of us that either never mentioned or outright said we don't follow any sort of religion. I'm not sure the good intentions for discussion were there in the first place. This thread is a horrible example of how to have an open and productive discussion with people. If you think this will get your message across, you're kidding yourself. To me, there was just too much bullying, ego patting and you think anyone would want to come in and 'engage' anyone in a discussion that's setup like this? I had a hard time trying to figure out whether or not this was 4chan or not.

I just know if this were any other forum, this thread would've been locked a long time ago. Hopefully no one personally insults or belittles me before it does happen though, because I'm so fragile that I can't handle it oh no... seriously, this must be like the new intelligent way of having discussions.. insulting and belittling people... really? And you think religion is the only thing that is poisonous to society? Any type of zealot potentially has that power.

Why are you so surprised ? dsgrue3 is about the same as 90% of atheists i've met on this forum and internet altogether. If you think this forum is bad, you should see reddit and 9gag where the slightest mention of religion (Christianity) will get your forum inbox spamfucked to oblivion. Internet warrior atheists are usually even more ignorant, dogmatic, and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim Muslims, Christians, Hindoos or Jews to be. They use science as their excuse for said dogmatism, and, unfortunately, some of them truly believe their own bullshit in this regard.

i only respect religions who believe they can talk to god. all this the phrophets lived 2,000 years ago is some weak sauce.