Zierro

Yes, but it cannot be observed, which is an important element amongst the scientific community. I used this argument because of the common usage of it against theism. "You cannot observe God, so why believe?" Saying that evolution takes a very long time is just as much of an "excuse" as saying god wants to be unseen. I don't quite get where you're going with this. Can you please clarify? They're not useless. The tailbone is used to keep many muscles and ligaments in place, and the cecum stores liquid waste. And even if it seemed that there is a useless organ, it could just simply be that we have not discovered the use yet. That wasn't really what I was getting at though. I meant why is there such a great lack of mongrel-like species? Evolution asserts abiogenesis - that we all came from one single cell that arose from inorganic material - that somewhere down the line there existed a cell without a parent. We're both living creatures. Of course you're going to see similarities. There is no doubt that monkeys and humans share some of the same genetic traits. The doubt comes into play when you conclude that they must be related. If aliens existed, there is a fair chance that they would have some similarities to us. If they walk upright, have two eyes, a nose, a mouth, 10 fingers, and 10 toes, that doesn't necessarily mean we're related to them. It's completely possible that humans looking like aliens is a coincidence, as it is completely possible that humans looking like monkeys is a coincidence. I don't see why it's so easy to believe in the coincidence that life arose from nothing and that genders popped into existence, but it's hard to believe it's a coincidence that animals kinda look like other animals. I didn't mean to bring god into this point, so I'm sorry if it came out that way. My point here is that it's an argument from incredulity - evolution might be the only thing we can think of, but that doesn't mean someone with a greater imagination can't think of something more logically sound in the future. And it doesn't have to deal with god. It can be a whole new scientific theory. But isn't that microevolution? The lizards have never turned into a different creature, just lizards with random growths or body parts that have a chance of being beneficial for their survival.

Pineapple Express It was alright. I was pretty disappointed in how drugs played a very minimal role in the film. It was just like any other generic movie, except the main characters would smoke a lot.

We're in agreement then. 1. Mutations have been observed, but an animal turning into a whole different kind of animal has not. (Just so we're on the same page, I'm not disputing microevolution.) The lack of evidence alone is reason enough not to believe that evolution is a proven fact. 2. The transition from asexual creatures to creatures who need both a male and female in order to reproduce makes very little sense at all. There had to be two animals that randomly generated these "opposite gender genes" from asexual parents in the same lifespan as each other, they had to find each other on this huge planet earth, and have intercourse in order to pass the gender genes down (and the genes had to be successfully carried down into the offspring and so forth). It's also pretty hard to believe that wings randomly and successfully came to be, given all the complications to aerodynamics. 3. There is a lack of transitional creatures in our fossil records. Why don't we see species of animals all with "half-wings" or other useless body parts? Even Darwin himself said, several generations ago, that if we don't find enough inter-species fossils then his theory would collapse. It's 2009 now and we're still searching. I have every right to be skeptical, especially when the person who proposed the theory even agrees with me. 4. The Law of Biogenesis VS The Theory of Evolution. There is plenty of evidence for Biogenesis - every living creature we have observed had parents. As for evolution, the only things we have to work with are conjectures about "patterns of progression". 5. Humans look for patterns where they do not exist. For example: the Mother Mary on someone's toast and seeing pictures in the clouds. Evolution sounds exactly like this. People putting skeletons next to each other, seeing some similarities, and then inferring that there is a pattern showing some sort of "progression". 6. Evolution proposes that my great-great-great etc. grandfather was a single cell. My body is composed of millions. Where did all the millions of extra cells come from? What about the DNA? 7. There is no need for evolution to exist. It is not the only possible explanation for why our bodies are so fine-tuned for survival, if you would even call it that. Again, I'm not saying evolution is an impossibility. It just surprises me how many people have such faith in this theory (enough that they even claim they're 100% sure about it) while they dismiss anything else without sufficient evidence to be entirely false. Evolution is exactly like God of the Gaps, but with the "God" part taken out.. Wishful thinking in order to try and explain a mystery without using the word "god", although the amount of support for each type of explanation are severely lacking. Belief in evolution and god are quite similar in this respect.

People have escaped jail before, just like people have been wrongfully sentenced to death. They are both pretty rare occasions if you ask me, but that doesn't mean they should be overlooked.

It only shows a person's last visit, not all of their visits. Whoa, didn't mean to offend you. I just needed an example of old theories being replaced. Yeah... that isn't putting your neck out because what is "proven" and what is "disproven" is an opinion. There are many people who already think evolution is disproven. You're really just saying, "I will never be convinced that evolution is false." So if new evidence comes up that contradicts evolution and you just ignore it, then you'd still technically be right because, in your eyes, evolution has not been "disproven".

I never said "everyone must be skeptical of everything", Rebel Dragon. I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable to be skeptical. Warrior said to only be skeptical when skepticism is due. Well, what does that mean? People were probably pretty sure of themselves about the earth being the center of the universe. And they had their "evidence" too, or so they thought. Later on that theory was replaced with a better one. If the mentality back then was to not be skeptical as long as something has "evidence" then we might not have discovered the truth about our planet's position in the universe. When you keep digging for more, you're bound to find better answers than what you had before. I believe everything should be questioned. And my main reason for posting this is because of all the people who go berserk when someone questions their theories. I'm not saying that we should throw them all into the trash - I'm saying we shouldn't engrave them into stone. And also you're reading into it too much with the 100% thing. Obviously there will be some things you can be 100% sure of, such as math equations. We're talking about scientific theories though. There are two different topics. The first is skepticism and the second is evolution. I said I didn't know much about evolution, but the majority of my post isn't really about evolution at all.

Jimi Hendrix - All Along the Watchtower

We're always replacing old evidence with new, and that's because of skepticism - people striving for more knowledge instead of just accepting something because it has some evidence supporting it and it's the only thing that we can come up with (argument from incredulity). Yes and that's a great thing but why should it stop? Like I said, old theories are replaced with new ones all the time. If science has proven anything, it's that you can't be 100% sure of anything. The quantum mechanic double-slit experiment is a good example: The double-slit experiment has been of great interest to philosophers, because the quantum mechanical behavior it reveals has forced them to reevaluate their ideas about classical concepts such as "particles",[12] "waves", "location", and "movement from one place to another". What might seem illogical and unrealistic in our macroscopic realm is completely normal on the quantum level. And for argument's sake, I could even use abiogenesis as an example. The prevalent belief used to be biogenesis - living things only come from other living things. But now as you say, there is new evidence proving otherwise (not that I believe it, this is just an example). With new discoveries, which are bound to happen, we'll be forced to rethink concepts which we once took for granted. So when would it be wrong to be skeptical about something? There is always a chance of discovering something new that will blow old evidence out of the waters no matter how sound and convincing that old evidence might seem at the time. If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things. To be honest, I'm not that interested in evolution nor have I done enough research on the topic. This is why I didn't claim if it's true or false. Right now I'm just on the fence and reserving my opinion until I learn more about it.

I'm not dismissing them as impossibilities but I would like to see much more evidence if I'm to have any belief in them. As far as I'm concerned, I've seen arguments against evolution that are just as good as the ones for it. I'm not trying to claim evolution is false either, it's just that I don't see sufficient evidence either way to form a judgment which I'm 100% sure of. By the way, I noticed you said they repeated some of the steps of abiogenesis. Not all of them. Accuracy is essential when trying to find out the truth, especially in subjects as murky as theology and the origin of life. I don't see why it's so bad to be skeptical about scientific theories but not with religion.

That is true. I guess you could say that a death penalty is almost objectively worse in this aspect. But what I was getting at is that I think everyone should be entitled to a fair trial. The current system, the one ABC brought up, is implying that they aren't really trying hard unless we're dealing with death sentences. Whether a man is sentenced to a year in prison or sentenced to death, the court should still strive to be as fair as possible and make sure they're not imprisoning the wrong person.

The theory of the multiverse: with an infinite amount of universes, anything can happen. Does this mean there's probably a god in one of those universes? As for abiogenesis, that's a leap of faith. There's been no empirical evidence for it whatsoever. There has never been a scientific reenactment of a living cell arising from inorganic material. The only reason this theory exists is because we have no other explanation for the origin of the first cell - which sounds a lot like god of the gaps and an argument from incredulity to me. Until I see abiogenesis and evolution, I will always be as skeptical as I am with religion.

Limp Bizkit is awesome. I agree with you. When and where you were born play a significant role in your taste of music, shows, etc. If I were born 10 years later, I would probably think Hannah Montana was a good show.

Why shouldn't they take those same measures when dealing with life sentences? To some people a life sentence is worse than a death sentence. Not only that, but they are a threat to the other prisoners too.

Their egos are too big nowadays. I didn't get my ego until I got the internet.

The argument here is that the universe seems to be so fine-tuned to suit our fragile existence that it's mathematically improbable for it to be a bunch of coincidences. We can even use Occam's razor here. Is it more logical to assume that we're living in a super-universe that accidentally has all of the required laws in order for life to exist (even though it doesn't give a damn if we live or die), or is it more logical to assume a designer (someone who probably does care if we live or die) purposely made all these laws in order to let our species thrive? Of course, as always, this just boils down to opinion. Because Stephen Hawking proved that the universe had a beginning. EDIT: Here's a source. As for a god, if he did create everything then that includes the concept of time, making cause and effect irrelevant to him.

A fetus is a little more developed than sperm. I think you're both going to the most extreme ends of the spectrum here.

Aladdin, Jurassic Park, Home Alone, Scrooged, Austin Powers, Oliver & Company, Space Jam, Ghost Busters, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Honey We Shrunk Ourselves, The Breakfast Club, Beavis and Butt-head Do America, Gremlins, The Goonies, Stand By Me, A Christmas Story Most of them are movies I wouldn't think twice about watching now.

How are you expected to give a proper rebuttal when they twist your words or just keep insulting you? I agree that it can get a bit excessive, especially when someone makes a valid point with a few trivial flaws on the side and then the other debater just shouts, "Logical fallacy!". But sometimes it's necessary.

Third Eye Blind - Jumper Yeah, great song. :thumbup:

Can't believe I forgot to put Starcraft. I played that game for hours and hours, and that was before I even got BattleNet.

Just had an omelette with bacon, vegetables, and buffalo sauce. It was delish. :wub:

He's good at inspirational speeches, and that's about it. I haven't seen much "change" at all.

I can do like two. I'm way better at flexed arm hangs for some reason.

Yeah. There were plenty of other shows on TV I'd rather watch back then, but it wasn't that bad. I hated those girls that always chased the Eds around. Cankers?

I'm pretty sure I use them both. Yeah, that sounds about right.