Is there anything you consider impossible?

4+4=9  is impossible, since mathematics is factual by nature ;)

Well, the issue is still debated among scientists, so I guess my assertions were for the more extreme ones. There's always different opinions about stuff that's unsure ( So maybe my assertions were useless )
On the other hand, if it's not predictable, and the source not understood (like Genetic drift and quantum physics), then what they perceive as 'randomness', could possibly be something else that just isn't constant or predictable - Even ID could be a possibility at that level, or just plainly a force or law of physics that's just not understood and thus assumed to be random, as it could affect genetic variances in not understood speficic ways, wouldn't you agree? 

I am sorta backing down from certain assertions because I realize I'd have trouble tying the theory of evolution to those assumptions.  But in my opinion(yes Ill say that now), the probabilities of life coming from non-life and the extent of change in organisms up to this point, are way too low for us to settle with simply random chance + time(about 4.5 billion years they say) & natural selection.

Alright, well I won't bore you with much of my thoughts on free will then, here's a quote from Charles Darwin himself, with a comment from someone else:

“…one doubts existence of free will every action determined by hereditary constitution, example of others or teaching of others. (…man…probably the only [animal] affected by various knowledge which is not heredetary & instinctive) & the others are learnt, what they teach by the same means & therefore properly no free will."

In his private musing on the question of free will, Darwin came to the conclusion that human free will is an illusion, and that all of our actions (and, by extension, our thoughts and intentions) are the result of our “hereditary constitution” and “the example…or teaching of others.”

Academic evolutionary biologists, have followed Darwin’s lead and asserted that human free will is an illusion. Most philosophers disagree, asserting that free will is the principle difference between humans and non-human animals...

So I dunno what to tell you. Darwin thinks it's just an illusion, so basically you have no free will.. you're just a robot with the 'illusion' of choice. So, you can blame all your stupid choices on evolution, since you don't really have any real choice.

I just.. disagree with that.

I'm not claiming anything about where the conciousness resides. It does appears to me that it is affected by causality, but in by no means ruled by it.

What about your physical environment, is there any physical action or circumstance that you consider impossible?  You say its possible that leprachuans that ride unicorns on the moon exist.  However, you say that it is impossible that evolution could lead to conciousness.  This is obvious hypocrisy in your logic.

I am trying to understand if this is actually how you think logically or if emotions play a large part in your thinking.  By emotional I mean that you want to believe in God so you think that fictional make-believe is possible, but evolution resulting in conciousness is impossible so God or some supernatural being must be responsible.

Yeah, in my environment right now, theres what we conceive as a keyboard near me. That's rather factual, especially since it's in the present. I can't guarantee that it'll still be there later, not that I care...

Evolution in reality could very well account for it, just like it could be something else entirely different. If I made statements that sounded absolute, I likely tried to prove that statement (back it up). Unlike you who has not even tried to backup your statements with evidence besides saying that 'everything made up doesn't exist' which is just outright false.

Super-natural being? Why would a being have to be responsible? Why couldn't it be some form of physics which we don't understand yet? A sort of force or element that in a sense is not unlike gravity. Do we understand the source of gravity? All we know is its effects (Masses attract) but we don't know why; that's just the way things are.

Oh, and to add. I rather disaprove of emotional influence in logical debates. Though it's fine if feelings are being used as an argument.

Haven't you ever heard the saying " Judge the message, not the messenger " ? It's low to try and discredit a message by attempting to descredit the speaker. You can dissect messages by logic alone, at least in debates and any logical dissertion. It's a different story for testimonies though (like witnesses)

How about you try to back up your statements that leprachuans on unicorns are possible, or that something similar to 'The Force' gives humans conciousness but keeps it from apes and other animals.

We have a good theory of what gravity is, we just havent discovered the Higgs Boson (or whatever the answer is) yet.  That doesnt mean that we can make up anything we want to be responsible for gravity.  If I find a pool of water under my sink, I use logic to deduct that maybe the pipes have a leak or there is a crack in the sink.  Just because I dont know what the cause is doesnt mean that I can make up fanciful explanations, such an invisible dragon who lives in my house and hides under the sink to relieve himself because that is the only time he becomes visible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility

"A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction."

"So, for example, the false proposition the sky is green is also logically possible, so long as we are able (as we indeed seem to be) to conceive of some logically coherent world in which the sky is green"

"These propositions are also to be contrasted with logically impossible propositions, i.e., propositions which could not possibly be true under any circumstances in any universe because they are formal contradictions. While it is logically possible for the sky to be green, it is not logically possible for a square to be circular in shape."

(Like my example of: 4+4=9 is impossible)

"Just because I dont know what the cause is doesnt mean that I can make up fanciful explanations,"

-you can, it's just unlikely. It's still a logical possibility.

Just remember kids, they're only 2 things that you can be 100% certain of. Well beyond evolution, the existence of god or even maths...

Death and taxes.

My goodness you bunch have said a lot.

Final-Fan said: I think it's a serious mistake to claim it's "illogical" to consider something proven even if you didn't personally witness it. The evidence for evolution is so massively strong it's unreasonable IMO to not conclude that it or a mechanism extremely similar is occurring. When you say that even if we observed dogs evolve into a separate species, we STILL couldn't safely say that non-dogs could also evolve into a separate species or even that dogs could evolve into a different separate species. That strikes me as being hyperconservative to the point of silliness. It seems to me that I might just as well say that I don't know that all the other cars on the streets aren't driven automatically, and the drivers are just playing with the steering wheel, with the exceptions of all the cars I've ever been in. At any rate, when you ask for "clearer evidence" that seems disingenuous to me, as it appears to me that by your standard no amount of evidence would ever be enough. "As for life coming from non-life", evolution is not concerned with that question, as it obviously only covers the evolution of life once it did exist. Although if we can trace life back far enough to the simplest forms, that probably gives a pretty strong hint as to what it was and how it might have come to be. But most of all, I really wonder why you think ID even rates a "maybe". It's just such a terrible idea, not even really a scientific theory. I can only guess that you are as reluctant to consider it wrong as you are to consider evolution right (which is to say, incredibly). I've been having a (very) protracted debate on whether we can really "know" much of anything at all, but assuming that we believe the world around us exists more or less as we perceive it, I don't see any way evolution (or something extremely similar) might not be true. Welcome to the forums.

Not checking your check, I think that you assume that I cut and pasted a lot of this but I did not. I gathered most of this together, while trying to research the websites that Highwaystar gave to me. He seemed to be needing a quick response so I dumped as much as I had down-

More than likely the partial quote that I used was used in conjunction with the brief description I gave of Darwin’s explanation for the evolution of the human eye. I apologize if I misrepresented the intention of the author, who used it before me, with that one statement but since I included within the entirety of my comment the explanation of the Darwin’s evolutionary theory for the eye, I do not think that I too horribly represented the ideas of Darwin.

I think though I am not sure (talking off the top of my head) Darwin was discussing the problems with complex organs that quote if from a section in his book. Behe later, through microbiology showed, that the eye can not be explained in step by step fashion.