Raf

The Exorcist. And for good measure Annie

I concur and am willing to call it a draw if you are.

Forrest Gump

Cool. I was trying to pick an easy one, and I Dreamed a Dream is about as recognizable a song as that movie had.

I'm not sure it has happened regularly, but it has happened since. Example, the characters of Ally McBeal (Fox) showed up on The Practice (ABC) and vice versa. And Det. Munch has been on Homicide, Law n Order, The Wire, The X-Files and The Simpsons, I think. But in terms of two regular supporting characters, no, I'm not sure it has happened since.

This ABC series was a spinoff of another ABC series, but ABC decided not to renew it for its third season. NBC picked it up for a third season, however. The parent series continued to air on ABC, the spinoff aired on NBC. It was the first time in TV history that supporting actors in one series on one network played the same characters at the same time in another series on a different network. Again, I'm looking for the spinoff series.

I Dreamed a Dream Master of the House On My Own Bring Him Home

I know this. it's... it's... it's making me crazy... WordWolf, you wanna take it or what?

Hooray?

One more thing, as regards the Cambrian explosion and the challenge it poses to evolution by natural selection: It doesn't. The Cambrian explosion is a popular tool of creationists to cast doubt on the fact of evolution, but it does nothing to cast doubt on natural selection as the mechanism that best explains how evolution has taken place. I refer you to the National Center for Science Education (the same outfit whose article you cited to inadvertently establish that the Biblical flood was indeed an actual error, as I have repeatedly demonstrated). http://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/darwin-s-dilemma-was-cambrian-explosion-too-fast-evolution-0015109 Abstract for source article for the NCSE article: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)00916-0 Actual source article: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(13)00916-0.pdf

T-Bone, I personally believe your first paragraph reflects the majority of our experiences, mine included. I believe you can still be a decent, doctrinal consistent Christian while subscribing to your second paragraph, but of course, my opinion on such a thing is no longer worth terribly much. ;)

Billy Bob Thornton Armageddon Ben Affleck

I definitely have the right show in mind, but I don't suppose "that show with the guy with the hair who taught viewers how to paint" is sufficient

I Dreamed a Dream

Yes. They first appeared in Clerks. Dogma was supposed the be the follow-up, but instead, Kevin Smith made Mallrats, which bombed. Then came Chasing Amy, which is a pretty damn good movie. Finally, Dogma was made and released. This was followed by Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (the only movie in which they are the main characters) and Clerks II. Jay and Silent Bob had a cameo in Scream 3 (Jay mistakes Courtney Cox's character for Connie Chung).

Yes

Trading Places ?

Sorry. Here we go: "This is pitiful. A thousand people freezing their butts off waiting to worship a rat. What a hype."

This 1999 movie was intended to be a sequel to the writer-director's first (surprise) hit movie, which came out five years earlier. For various reasons, the director decided to write and direct two other movies first. The first of these two movies bombed. The second was a critical and commercial success. The movies all have two supporting characters in common and are set in the same universe. Sort of. Other actors play multiple roles in different movies in the series, but these two supporting actors always play the same two characters. After the 1999 movie came out, two more movies were made featuring these two characters (who also had a cameo, in character, in a movie from a COMPLETELY unrelated film franchise).

Of course. Any minute now.

I can see it. But I don't know what the show was called and can't remember the main dude's name.

Welcome to the forum, Longhunter. I took a look at that twitter account, and I don't believe for a second that any of it was written by LCM. Not his style at all. The person who wrote it has serious syntax/communication issues that LCM simply did not have. By the way, please check the dates on the threads you decide to post on. Before your update, the last post to this thread was seven years ago! Not that it's a problem, but it is probably something you want to know.

Now, instead of using this space to debate evolution (which is not abiogenesis and does not claim to be), let's stick with the topic of whether there are errors in Genesis. If you would like to discuss evolution in further detail, please start another thread. I raised the issue of the order of development of life on earth to show that Genesis conflicted with scientific consensus, which it absolutely does.

Returning to the subject of what evolution "predicts," I see that there's some misunderstanding on your part of what I meant. I shall attempt to clarify. You asked, "Are there any details to the predictions that we should be on the lookout for? ... how would we know over the course of human history if the predictions came true?" Etc. The problem here is, you are interpreting my use of the word "prediction" as an expectation that we will observe something as it happens. While that is certainly the case on the micro-level (which you do not dispute), it is not the case in the macro-level (which you do appear to dispute, correct me if I'm mistaken). So let's take a step back and explain what I mean in context by "predict." Let's say you have a crime. Murder, rape, robbery. A real ugly scene. The victim, of course, is no longer around to testify about what has happened. But you have a suspicion that the killer is a specific person. Why? Well, this person showed up at a pawn shop trying to sell some of the stolen items. You now have a hypothesis: The Seller is also The Rapist/Killer. Working from that hypothesis, what do you expect to find back at the crime scene and other places? Based on the hypothesis that the Seller is the Rapist/Killer, you can expect (predict) the following: If there's DNA inside the victim it will belong to the Seller. If there are fingerprints at the scene, they will belong to the Seller. If there are footprints at the scene, they will match the Seller's foot size. If there is a recording, it will show the Seller. Note, none of these are predictions about the future. They are predictions about what you will learn about the past. For the sake of argument, now, let's say we have the following: There's no video of the incident, but a closed circuit camera took a photo every 23 seconds. Fingerprints all over the crime scene come back to the Seller. It's his DNA in the victim. The stolen items are all recovered in the Seller's bedroom. After a while, you gather enough evidence so that your hypothesis, "The Seller is the Rapist/Killer" is no longer just a hypothesis. It is now a theory: an explanation of what took place that is consistent with the evidence and that can be used to extrapolate beyond what you have as evidence. In one photo, taken at moment 1:00:00, someone matching the Seller is seen outside a window. At 1:00:23, the figure is still outside the window, but the glass is broken, and a brick is inside the house. At 1:00:46, the Seller is inside the house, on the opposite side of the window. Now, you may look at these three photos and bemoan the fact that there are no transitional fossils photos showing that the Seller threw the brick through the window and crawled through the now broken window to get to the inside of the house. And unless you find those transitional photos, you are simply not prepared to believe that the person inside the house is the same person as the one outside the house. For example, you note, the person inside the house is bleeding, while the person outside the house is not. Clearly not the same person. You could go that route, but you'd be an idiot. You wrote: "The fossil record lacks transitional fossils showing common traits between an ancestral group and its supposedly derived descendants." That is an absolute falsehood, on a number of levels. First of all, ALL FOSSILS ARE TRANSITIONAL. What you are actually saying is that we do not have a complete fossil record of the evolution of any species, and that is, of course, true. But to say the fossil record "lacks" transitional fossils betrays an utter misunderstanding of what fossils are in the first place. All the fossils we have are transitional. That's what fossils are! But here's what happens: I have a picture of myself from 1971 and a picture of myself today. While there are some similarities, we do not look like the same person at all. It's a pretty big gap between 1971 and 2014. But wait, now I find a picture of myself from 1992! Good, right? It shows what I looked like about halfway between 1971 and 2014 (give or take a year). But what happens? Now, instead of ONE gap, we have TWO -- one from 1971 to 1992, and the other from 1992 to 2014. Now we look for more transitional photos. We find pics dating 1983 and 2001. Awesome. We're filling in what we can, but we also now have four gaps. That's a LOT of missing photos. Can't be sure the person in the 2014 photo is a later form of the person in the 1971 photo. Not with so many missing transitional photos. The reason there are so many gaps in the fossil record is simply that there are so many fossils. Biologists have done a fairly decent job of classifying and categorizing these things and showing which fossils are transitional in relation to each other and which are on a different "branch," so to speak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Of course, no list will EVER be complete, because the surveillance camera didn't take a video. It only took intermittent snapshots. So, back to what evolution predicts. Evolution predicts that we will find certain fossils in certain strata. Evolution does NOT predict that we will observe one species for a period of a few hundred or even a few thousand years and observe the transformation of one species into the next. That's what Ross implied, and that was a lie. Etc.