You feel insulted becuase those who follow real science have absolutely no reason to offer respect to someone who believes in Intelligent design.  I'm sorry, but there's absolutely NO logic or science backing your claim.  The most you have is a deep rooted sense of doubt brought on by ignorance on the topic of evolution, and I'm sorry, but ignorance does not mean it's okay to violently defend your viewpoint.  (I noticed in one of your rant-tastic tirades against people like dsgrue3 and myself that you were a man who's beliefs stemmed from creationism).  

And player 1x3, just stop.  So sick of you taking every opportunity to lash out at the very idea of atheism with your pathetic accusations of us relying on faith and our supposed abuse of science to 'push our agenda'.  There is no agenda.  the entirety of the atheism argument  is that "There's no reason to believe in God, therefore we don't.  IT's not a matter of fake enlightenment, it's a matter of following the facts and being disappointed that there are people out there (The religious, those who deny established facts and monunentally supported theories) who actively ignore facts and scientific progression not because there's good reason to doubt, but becuase they don't WANT to believe something. 

So seriously, just stop your crusade. IT makes you look like a zealot. 

This is a recipe for disaster. If you cannot manage to have some respect in a DEBATE, then don't debate at all. The number one rule in a debate is to respect eachother even if you have completely different opinions. Sure, happydolphin has proven to be a bit unknowledgeble when it comes to evolutionary sciences but if you refuse to respect him you lose by default.

The "..." are parts that I agree with. I agree with your criticism of dsgrue, I am so upset at that guy.

As for having an agenda. How? When I'm getting called a troll for asking questions, you bet I'm going to say that I was right to start with. Some people are on such high ground I feel like my only option is to fight with equal strength when I have the upper hand. This isn't about an agenda, it's about my ego being constantly bashed. You need to understand that. I may be taking the wrong approach to my problem, but you have to understand that the root of the problem was hostile behavior from dsgrue from the start. Runa also jumped in early on and jumped out quickly so as to avoid a ban but he was also quick to reject my ideas simply because they went against his viewpoint, without even considering them. And that's why I had to insist that I was right in the first place, because time and time again they will dismiss my concerns simply because I am not an atheist. It's to make a point, I don't have an agenda I'm just pretty frustrated with their attitudes tbh. I don't think that's such an unfair emotion imho.

As for people getting angry because others are arguing scientific viewpoints with religion. Where did I, the main player on the creationist camp, do that? All my points were based on logic and pragmatic issues I saw with a scientific theory (evolution). I was always working on the grounds of my understanding of genetics.

The attitudes of these people was ill-founded from the get-go.

I can appreciate that dsgrue tried to maintain self-control, but he still has a LOT more work to do. If people want to help the atheistic cause, they may want to be a little more respectful of people. People don't like to learn when they are treated as morons. Trust me, I really know.

Yes, I demand respect because I have a right to believe what I believe, I personally believe it is true and have my reasons for it and you have no right to disrespect me for it. I don't agree with evolution it doesn't mean I reserve the right to treat you without respect that is the most aweful reasoning I have heard to date. You are rationalizing your disrespectful behavior towards people simply because you do not agree with their viewpoint.

ITT I have done everything to prove that I am not an imbecil. I mean I think it should be pretty darn clear this far that I'm not. It's sad when it comes to the point that, once you mention you are Christian or a Creationist, you are considered an absolute moron and the onus is now on you to do everything you can to show that you are intelligent and that you can make valid points. This is a very sad thing.

It ties into what player is saying and though I don't think he should project that onto all atheists (thats quite unfair, and if he didn't do that than I take this back), but he is stating a social trend on the internet and IRL where certain atheists have taken it upon themselves to make a crusade against creationists or Christians and it's a very sad state of affairs, and it all ties into OP.

So to me, it doesn't make him look like a zealot, he's actually telling us things like they are, that there are darker places on the net where people abuse users because of their religious views. It's sad.

Respect is earned, not given.  If what you're saying is complete nonsense, I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt just because you're my peer. if you were making claims that were respectful and intelligent, you'd never, ever see me so aggressive.  Grew up with plenty of intelligent people that were able to have civil, intelligent debates about hot topics like this without resorting to such silly nonsense;  you are not one of those people (at least in my experience.)  

I have plenty of respect for people who have earned it, or have proven to not be ignorant fools on a topic they clearly know next to nothing about.  

Probably going to get banned for that becuase you're a report happy  user, but nothing I've said has been wrong, and nothing I said was anything more than a well-rationed observation on your ability to debate.  if you can't handle criticism on your ability to debate/discuss sensitive topics, don't bother getting into an argument with people.  Simple as that.  

This is my last post to you.  Don't bother responding becuase I won't read it.  I've said my piece, and I have nothing more to discuss with you, as you have nothing of value to say on the subject.  

I'm not sure who you're talking to (you replied to Chrizum), and I'm not even sure I want your respect (read approval) anymore.

You've proved that you are dismissive of Christians online, and that's all we need to know. You were dismissive of my pretty obvious point against dsgrue's observation precludes existence, which to anyone with a bit of smarts would realize that that was a pile of horse dung, and that goes to show just how biased you are.

Your approval, it is not needed. (Basically, you are not a person who's judgement on another's capabilities matters, because it is broken)

The respect is earned not given mantra is nice and all but without respect there cannot be a sound debate so don't act surprised if things go nowhere.

Disclaimer: I'm a biochemist, this is not directly within my field but here's my understanding of it.

Again, I don't think inbreeding was a problem because evolution is not an individual thing, it's something that happens to large groups over incredibly long times.

According to the idea of speciation there would never be just 2 individuals you could procreate with each other because that wouldn't make a viable group/species.  Speciation only occurs with large groups and you don't get speciation within a group to have individuals that can't procreate unless they have a genetic defect that would end their gene line anyway.  

Don't believe we know any specific gene that dictates breeding.

Cells actually don't have inbreeding because they're able to share and "trade" DNA fragments in other ways.  New genes are usually made through random mutation in cells which occurs at a much faster rate because of the small amount of time between "generations" in which copying the DNA of a cell to make a new one always comes with some random error.  So then once the cells have a gene that is beneficial they need a way to mix their genes with other individuals of the species.  Many (perhaps all, I haven't looked that much into it) cell lines have plasmids which are small circular pieces of DNA that they will shoot out into their environment and any other cell can pick up and incorporate, if that specific gene turns out to be beneficial than the cells with that gene will begin to dominate and that's how evolution in general works for single cell organisms.  So all species have some way in which to mix DNA from individuals in order to make the species as a whole more adaptable to their environment in hopes that it helps them survive.  

The above procedure for Cells passing plasmids to one another is actually how we as biochemists insert genes for proteins we want to study into E. Coli which is easy to grow and we know how to take advantage of its systems well.  We have to futz with the conditions to give us the best chances possible of the cells actually incorporating the plasmid, but that's where biologists got the idea in the first place.  

And this is why I like talking to you. You actually answer my questions.

@bold. I wasn't clear. I understood your answer to speciation in a large pool of individuals, that's ok. I was asking a follow-up question, like for example, what happened when the very first species emerged, right after the cell in terms of complexity, whereby breeding became a fundamental part of procreation? Because at that very moment, wouldn't the inbreeding constraint come into play?

I'll toss on the disclaimer again about this not being my field, but here we go.

Because evolution is a process of eventual and extremely slow changes I would assume that at some point where complexity was increasing from single celled organisms and breeding became an option where they organisms were able to do both and you could again move from the continuum of a species that propogated solely by asexual means to those that can only do so by breeding.  This would be similar to how single cells split to reproduce, but can tranfer genes in order to evolve their species, which is midway between totally asexual reproductive cloning and breeding.  Therefore I don't believe there was ever a point where inbreeding was a problem for any surviving species as a whole.