It is impossible for any action to limit its influence to only one person. Even with extreme regulation, actions like smoking, drinking, and fighting will increase the likelihood of the persistence of these activities elsewhere due to social pressures and other subconscious factors (i.e. if an action is viewed acceptable by enough people, others will have an easier time accepting it as well). As more people live this lifestyle, the entire society will begin to reflect these choices. Different lifestyles may affect the leaders elected, laws passed, technology invested in, programs funded, and other factors within a nation. Therefore these rights will affect me if enough people "use" them for a long enough time.

I usually don't like to get involved with "moral" debates because morality itself is such a loosely defined term, that it becomes increasingly difficult to construct a proper argument. However, more recently, evolutionary biologists have put forth some interesting theories attempting to explain the origin of certain "moral tendencies" in human behavior. One of them states (roughly) that it is plausible that feelings of altruism may have risen when early societies began forming. If someone does a favor for someone else, they are more likely to get something in return because they are seen as a contributing member of the society and are therefore more important than other members (winning special them benefits). So in this case a person can actually "evolve" specific moral traits.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/ 20/2684.short, http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/179/11/1029.short, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=286&issue;=4&page;=462

These are three examples from three different medical journals. Recent studies suggest secondhand smoke is EXTREMELY harmful. I assure you the effects are not exaggerated.

Of course there are other ways, but the death penalty simply presents one opportunity to rid the world of some of those potential problems (i.e. murder/other heinous crimes). Why would one ignore the opportunity just because they know there are other ways to attack potential "society ruiners"...if I may use the term? If an opportunity to do good (in this case increase the probability of the society's well being by eliminating harmful members) presents itself in any situation, TAKE IT! The outcome will most likely be positive as long as one thinks CLEARLY about the effects of the death on society

I have to agree. As a general rule, knowledge leads to more informed decision making and therefore a higher probability of better decisions. It is becoming clearer that quantum mechanics is an essential principle of knowledge in our species and without it, humans will die out at the time of, or most likely before the Earth becomes inhabitable. It is fundamental to our knowledge of the universe and can bring new developments that will change the very way mankind perceives the world. many of these developments are just around the corner like quantum cryptography and superconductors while may such as the nature of quantum black holes and the theory of everything may take longer to develop. As long as our understanding of the universe is not abused too much (such as the creation of the atomic bomb), we should continue in the ultimate quest for knowledge. Although many of these unfortunate "side effects" may be inevitable, they are worth it! Quantum mechanics is the future (a part of it anyway)!

I do not think that the death penalty is necessarily "justice" because notions of right and wrong are terribly subjective. However, in principle, the death penalty may be useful for removing members of society who show evidence of severely damaging it in the future. An example may be a psychopathic serial killer who shows no signs of recovery and who would only put more stress on the people and/or resources provided by society. If the goal of the legal system is to preserve the order and create a higher probability of order in the future, then the death penalty is certainly a feasible solution to corrupt members of the state. Then again, I suppose it depends upon what one's goal is....If moral standards are at stake, a logical solution cannot be found.

This isn't really a site just about argument. We try to give the other side our point of view while keeping an open mind in order to find a common ground on controversial issues and promote logical reasoning. AKA "CreateDebate". Also, saying people "were meant to argue" is not an entirely true statement. Our early evolutionary past has promoted aggressiveness towards those who challenge our status or ability to survive and reproduce, however more recently, we have learned to work with each other and cooperate to overcome challenges. The more civilized, rational mind of man was not meant to argue, they were designed to cooperate with each other for the sake of the community's achievement.

It was very hard for me to choose a side in this question (it is a very well stated one, I might add), but because of the way it was put my opinion is no. The reason for a persons tendency to gawk at other culture's customs is, of course, because of the subjective "cultural baggage" each individual carries with them. Once a person is immersed into a certain culture for long enough, that culture becomes the premise for what is "normal". Most people can agree with this idea. Even though people looking at other cultures may find them strange at first, the more someone travels and immerses his or herself into that culture, the more normal that new culture becomes. Therefore, i don't feel that travel narrows the mind. The more one travels, the more one is introduced to different customs and world views. They are then more likely to adopt some of those world views, or at least consider them. This act would probably broaden the mind, not narrow it, because people would be forced to look at different issues with a different perspective.

"You see specified complexity indicating a design and that design for a specific purpose, indicating intent. And intentions and purposes are something only minds have."

I dont think the complexity of the nature of an event/being requires a purpose or intent. There are many things in nature that are complex, but can be explained without a creator or any intelligent intervention such as the formation of a star or galaxy, how a black hole forms, or the way planets form (Sorry for all of the astronomy examples...I just like astronomy so i decided to use them)

"And then the mind blowing part comes in; you have to take this concept of a human body and write it in a genetic code!!!! How could you possibly do that without designing it and without being incredibly and transcendentally intelligent?"

I agree with you in regards to how how complex and incredible the human body is...especially the brain. We havent even scratched the surface yet. However, this is a similar argument that you listed previously...complexity doesnt require intelligence...We understand how the human body became so complex (vs a single cell). The process of evolution through natural selection made the body this way.

"So the probability of it happening without intelligent design is zero. And we all know that zero times any number is zero. So I don't care how many millions of years you tack on to give it time to happen through the course of nature or evolutionary process, it will never happen because the probability factor is zero."

Actually the probability isnt zero...evolution has shown that with minor changes over a long period of time you can get extremely complex and well adapted beings from simpler ones...this is an ongoing process. It can be observed today....IT IS A FACT.

I do agree that there is a lot more to discover because humans really do not know that much about our origins yet. However, a creator does not solve any of the mysteries we are faced with because a creator doesnt solve the problem of complexity/information. I mentioned this in my last argument. A creator would have to have its own creator because it is intelligent. Then that creator would have had to be created...so on and so forth....it is just a never ending cycle.

I don't think this is a legitimate scientific argument because the idea of information can be interpreted in a variety of ways. DNA is only considered information because it allows cells to reproduce...Also, an intelligent creator doesnt solve the problem because the creator would also have information and would need a creator (so on and so forth)...If you then say that the creator doesnt need a creator because it ha always been there, it becomes a religious idea...Intelligent design should not even be thought of as a serious idea until it has evidence...it is not even a theory...ID is not considered a theory because it needs evidence to support it. The only argument for ID thus far is simply saying that life is too complex to have emerged by natural forces, however there are currently some models that are gaining momentum and that can explain how life could emerge naturally (abiogenesis). Here is one (Just skip the long intro and ignore some of the comments because they dont really have anything to do with the process of abiogenesis).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

This model has evidence, which is why it is more likely than ID at the moment. There is still more research to be done, but we are on the right track and this looks pretty promising.