Evolution vs. Creationism (Non-structured)

Actually, I think out cells are more intelligent then we give them credit for. Idk who has watched discovery channel recently but scientists were able to introduce certain proteins into a ostrich embryo, to give then create traits. They were able to basically make a proto-raptor to basically prove that our cells and dna don't really change, they just learn new tricks. Now if cells are able to use proteins to just come up with the idea to instead grow a snout and teeth to instead grow a beak, I mean does this mean our cells actually have a mind of our own? and our beings and personalities are simply the combine minds of our cells?

I think there is some evidence that supports some of what you say, Diaster. From what I remember, (although I can't site a place) your cells give off a certain frequency of energy that is in the invisible spectrum of colors and these energies may be used to communicate across your body. This is also where the idea of an aura comes from, but I digress from my normally backed up posts.

I find it interesting that we seem to know so much but when it comes down to what we are ourselves we can barely scratch the surface so to speak, and that whole thing was me beating their uncertainty with MORE uncertainty!!!

Sorry I started us off-topic, please split this Jay.

actually id rather have a small philosphical/scientific/religious discussion like the 'human mind' thread and the 'end of the world' thread.

all of these rules make it harder.

The rules are intended to make you think about your responses instead of just spouting nonsense. I attempted to set it up in a similar fashion to a real debate, as opposed to random arguments that occur normally. (My definition of a debate is a discussion that uses only logic, and my definition of an argument is a discussion that uses emotion or conjecture.)

Unless you equate debate to rhetoric and then you believe as Aristotle did. All good rhetoricians should have Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, or, simply put, all rhetoricians should have an ethical appeal (so that their character is judged as "good" and thus is credible), should have an emotional appeal so as to sway people on those grounds, and a logical appeal.

I think that in a practical sense, that's true - however if you're talking to an open-minded, intelligent individual you shouldn't need rhetoric to appeal to them, as they would be able to figure things out by themselves...but on a day to day basis it's a lot more practical to have rhetoric... I think a certain person saying something shouldn't have as much impact...but it does. Although someone might be more credible, it doesn't mean you should rule out other options or let it be the deciding factor...In fact, isn't it a logical fallacy to do so? Poisoning the well? Just because the pope says something, and a random homeless guy says something else - (Assuming only 2 options) and they say different things...only one of them must be right, no? But then this starts going into philosophy and absolute truths and such...