If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[Alawen Everywhere]

Originally Posted by Succession [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My thoughts on Atheism:

I would rather live my entire life believing in God only to find out when I die that there is no Heaven/Hell than live my life denying God only to find out when I die that God is real and consequently spending Eternity in the Burning Depths of Hell. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atleast believe in something, man. Anything.. :/

If there really is an afterlife, you don't want to be one of those lost souls just floating about in limbo for eternity. Come join the party. Those Islamic guys are gonna be chillin with 69 virgins, I know you love that. Or maybe those Christians will invite you over to the Golden Streets of Heaven? Shit man, you could even party in Hell if you're in to that kind of stuff. Maybe, the Buddhists will hook you up with some Nirvana. I mean, group up with the Agnostics and discuss your own ideas if you want. They'll be around I'm sure, atleast some of them.[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you really care that much about your tiny significance of a mortal, humanly life to blindly denounce God(s)? Why are you mad? Forgive your debtors my friend. Coexistence is possible.

You're human flesh has an expiration date, no matter what you believe in. We all die. You're belief in nothing will lead you, that is for sure. It will lead you to die alone. You're soul will drift from your dead body alone, into nothing, forever.[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Have faith, in something.
Treat your Soul to a Divine existence, bro.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Unedited - I don't give a fuck][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wow, that would be really clever if Blaise Pascal hadn't come up with the idea of gaming the heaven system 400 years ago. What you're proposing is called Pascal's Wager. Unfortunately, it reflects terrible logic and indulges in the fallacy of argument from inconsistent revelations. This was first pointed out by no less a man than Voltaire himself!

One of the problems with this bet (for that's what this is--a gamble on infinity) is that there have been many gods and many religions throughout human history. Who is to say that the Christian God is the best bet? Ever heard that "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet?" What if the Greeks had it right? Or the Babylonians? Or the Celts?

Richard Dawkins proposes that if God exists, he may be more inclined to reward honest attempts at reason over blind faith. Further, he suggests an anti-Pascal wager in which it is likely that one would lead a superior life by not squandering one's time worshiping, sacrificing for, fighting for and possibly even dying for an arbitrarily chosen deity.

On the other hand, it's good that you're at least trying to think!

[Alawen Everywhere]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hehe. Nice try. Just because you are scared to believe that there are people out there that make more than you does not mean that I don't. I mentioned money...you are the one that keeps dwelling on it and asking me about it. Poor little guy. Next.

Hey, I'm really broke. If I accept Jesus as my personal savior, would you be inclined to help me out so I can get a fresh start in life?

[Alawen Everywhere]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From wiki huh? Nice. My mistake I meant to say Donkey and not mule. In a way you proved my point. Let me explain. I am sure you won't understand, but here it goes.

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

When your dog is going to have a litter, don't worry that she will have a litter of monkeys or cats. She will always have a litter of puppies. The fact that she will have puppies was determined when her chromosomes joined with her mate's chromosomes at conception. You see, a dog has only 22 chromosomes, whereas a monkey has 54 and cats have 38. Half of the total number of chromosomes are contained in the female reproductive cells and half are contained in the male, so the exact total number is brought together in the offspring.

Humans have 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count doesn't vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc. The genes can produce variety within the species but cannot result in a different species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but they are still all human beings. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. Dogs cannot breed with cats. This fact stops evolution dead in its tracks.

Sometimes two species are close enough to crossbreed, but the offspring are usually sterile. This is the case when horses and donkeys crossbreed. A male donkey (jackass) and a female horse (mare) will produce a mule. Farmers often preferred mules as work animals prior to the development of the farm tractor. A hinny is the offspring of a female donkey (jenny) and a male horse (stallion). The hinny and mule usually cannot produce offspring. These animals show that evolution is not possible.

I'd like to thank you for this question. No, seriously. I had no idea what the answer was, and this is actually one of my fairly serious hobbies, so I started digging.

The answer to your questions is that chromosomes are not completely fixed. There are several ways for a particular gamete to change chromosome count. It's fairly technical but it basically boils down to that sometimes the two parts of a gamete don't split successfully (non-disjunction) and sometimes two chromosomes that are not part of a pair get stuck together (translocation).

The great apes all have 24 chromosome pairs. We, of course, have 23. There is no way to know for sure whether the great apes added a chromosome or humans dropped one, but the general thinking is that if the majority of species within a group (we group with great apes at the family level, hominidae) have the same number of chromosomes but another varies by one, it is likely that species is the one that varied. Ergo, human DNA was probably subject to translocation which reduced our chromosome count from 24 to 23. It seems likely that there was some pattern highly susceptible to translocation in one of our predecessors.

Interestingly enough, humans are a very inbred species compared to the other great apes. A small population of chimpanzees will apparently reflect as great a genetic diversity as all of mankind. You have, interestingly enough, hit upon the answer to why there are no 80% human great apes--the mutation that led to homo sapiens could no longer breed successfully with other closely related species.

It may go without saying, but gene mutations of this sort are fatal and almost always sterile. However, it's not extremely rare. In the last 17,000 years or so since humans began domesticating animals, we have created domesticated species whose chromosome counts vary from their feral ancestors.

I like it when I learn something new. I like it a lot.

[Alawen Everywhere]

Oh, I suppose I should have mentioned that the problem in your argument is line one in paragraph two. You are incorrect there. There is indeed scientific evidence as well as domesticated animals which proves that a species can be subject to a change in the number of chromosomes in its DNA.

[Lazortag]

Is there someone on this board who seriously doesn't believe in evolution? How can you believe in something that is against virtually every peer-reviewed scientific journal? Is it all just a conspiracy?

[chtulu]

I'd like to take this time to congratulate myself on this thread.

[RocketMoose]

Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd like to thank you for this question. No, seriously. I had no idea what the answer was, and this is actually one of my fairly serious hobbies, so I started digging.

The answer to your questions is that chromosomes are not completely fixed. There are several ways for a particular gamete to change chromosome count. It's fairly technical but it basically boils down to that sometimes the two parts of a gamete don't split successfully (non-disjunction) and sometimes two chromosomes that are not part of a pair get stuck together (translocation).

The great apes all have 24 chromosome pairs. We, of course, have 23. There is no way to know for sure whether the great apes added a chromosome or humans dropped one, but the general thinking is that if the majority of species within a group (we group with great apes at the family level, hominidae) have the same number of chromosomes but another varies by one, it is likely that species is the one that varied. Ergo, human DNA was probably subject to translocation which reduced our chromosome count from 24 to 23. It seems likely that there was some pattern highly susceptible to translocation in one of our predecessors.

Interestingly enough, humans are a very inbred species compared to the other great apes. A small population of chimpanzees will apparently reflect as great a genetic diversity as all of mankind. You have, interestingly enough, hit upon the answer to why there are no 80% human great apes--the mutation that led to homo sapiens could no longer breed successfully with other closely related species.

It may go without saying, but gene mutations of this sort are fatal and almost always sterile. However, it's not extremely rare. In the last 17,000 years or so since humans began domesticating animals, we have created domesticated species whose chromosome counts vary from their feral ancestors.

I like it when I learn something new. I like it a lot.

Interesting, just another supporting fact for creationism and the fact that God created Adam and Eve...

[Hauling]

Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh, I suppose I should have mentioned that the problem in your argument is line one in paragraph two. You are incorrect there. There is indeed scientific evidence as well as domesticated animals which proves that a species can be subject to a change in the number of chromosomes in its DNA.

Thank you Alawen.

"I don't want to live on this planet anymore." ~Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth after enduring an unfounded creationist argument.

[Hauling]

Originally Posted by RocketMoose [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Interesting, just another supporting fact for creationism and the fact that God created Adam and Eve...

That's quite a jump. I don't know my logical fallacies too well, but I'm pretty sure that's one of them.

[Alawen Everywhere]

Originally Posted by Hauling [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's quite a jump. I don't know my logical fallacies too well, but I'm pretty sure that's one of them.

Let's look at the logical form, shall we!

Human are a very inbred form compared to the other great apes

therefore

God created Adam and Eve.

What do we have to connect that conclusion to the premise? Well, the premise does include humans and the conclusion includes Adam and Eve, two hypothetical humans. The premise discusses the genetic diversity within the human genome as compared to our closest related species. The conclusion then somehow arrives at a supernatural origin for our species.

Given that it is a struggle to come up with even the most highly speculative reasoning to connect the premise with the conclusion, this is the fallacy of non sequitur, i.e. "it does not follow." I suggest that RocketMoose's rhetoric is fallacious, but given his good manners I will decline to make derogatory statements about his intellect.