You asked for it:

Yes, you keep stressing "revision", and that's exactly my point. We expect for science to keep being revised and changed as new knowledge enters the system...So why put so much faith in it now?
Because it is the best we have now. It works now. And, I’ll just come right out and say this, it is not wrong now. It is incomplete in certain specific and acknowledged areas, and perhaps even in others not yet discovered due to technological limits. However, as was Newton’s formulation of gravity, our modern formulation of the standard model and quantum field theory (I am assuming here your beef is primarily with quantum mechanics since everyone who doesn’t understand it seems to have a beef with quantum mechanics) is more than likely an approximation of a more narrow range of situations which will be more thoroughly described by the next formulation developed. That is, incidentally, a major qualification for the next theory which will either modify or replace our current quantum mechanical model – it must match the quantum mechanical predictions on all of the myriad experiments which QM has predicted with heretofore unmatched precision. You work with what you’ve got, and what we’ve got now is pretty damn good. To decide to wander through the darkness of self-imposed doubt because what we have now isn’t perfect is no better than a man standing in a dark and windowless room bemoaning the lack of light but refusing to turn on the incandescent bulb which dangles above his head because the lightbulb isn’t natural sunlight and therefore illuminates the world only imperfectly.

Gravity may have been studied for 350 years or thousands of years...It doesn't matter. We still have absolutely no idea why it exists, or what it is--only that it does seem to exist.
Wrong. I am not your science tutor, so I’m not going to give you a lesson on relativity or quantum mechanics. However, before you post such inaccuracies again, learn about that which you profess so ignorantly. Go read up on the relativistic and quantum mechanical understandings of gravity. Those certainly do not represent the profound ignorance you propose..

And again, you go back to trying to prove that I disbelieve in science, which is sort of a silly point to try to make, since I've already explained that the only qualm I have with "scientists" is when they believe that theories we have today describe all of existence, and anything that doesn't fit neatly into a theory or a reading off of an instrument does not exist.
Then you have no qualm and your entire “public debate” here is moot. No trained and respected scientist believes such nonsense. Unlike you, they have been trained in the history of scientific discovery and the methods of its progress. It is their job and their passion to revise and perhaps even overthrow the work of the past for more accurate understandings of the physical world. That is the point. You are, by the way, unqualified to hold this debate if you do not even comprehend such a foundational thing as that.

Religion evolves just as much as science does.
If you actually believe that you are far more delusional and disconnected from reality than you seem.

Religion has just as much proof and evidence to the subscribers of religion, as science does to the subscribers of science.
No. Religion is based on faith, which is quite the opposite of the physical evidence upon which science operates.


Just because you don't believe in religion doesn't invalidate it (side note: I do not subscribe to religion). To a scientific person like yourself, obviously, religion is utter foolishness, but it's just another way to experience and describe the perceptions of everyday life--just like science.
You should not presume the beliefs of those whom you do not know.

I believe that many scientists proclaiming to be skeptics are not truly skeptical in nature because of their inherent bias towards anything that doesn't fit into a theory put forth by someone else who shares their learned perceptual capacities.
That is a human bias, not a scientific one. The scientific process is designed to circumvent and overcome such biases through a rigorous methodology of experimentation and testing of hypotheses. If a scientist proposes a hypothesis which is in line with previous work, and that hypothesis, when tested, is shown to be false, it doesn’t matter whether the scientist liked that hypothesis or found it comforting. It is incorrect and s/he must abandon it. Now, personal bias can affect how thoroughly a given scientist tests a hypothesis; however, in a global community, when a new hypothesis is tested by one scientist, others test it as well to either confirm of disprove the earlier results. One person’s preference cannot stem the tide of research and progress.

Some examples of this...The flat earth
Even in ancient times, observant philosophers and scientists did not believe this. The very fact that as a ship sails toward the horizon, its mast gradually sinks indicates a round earth and not a flat one.

earth being the center of the universe
Without the proper technology to test this hypothesis, it could be neither confirmed nor rejected. The fact that the orbits of celestial bodies had to be incredibly complicated in order for the geocentric model to accurately predict the placement of objects in the sky should have been a clue of the model’s inaccuracies, and to some, it was. With the development and refinement of the telescope by medieval scientists (Galileo being the most well known), more detailed observations of celestial objects were possible and it was the Catholic Church (a vast, organized, stagnant religion with a vested interest in the status quo) which most vehemently opposed the heliocentric model which was suggested by Galileo’s discovery of moons orbiting the planet Jupiter.

blood being the medium of heredity
An approximation of the reality of DNA as the medium of heredity. The discovery of DNA as the carrier of genetic information in the mid-20th century was the culmination of discoveries which began almost a century before. Back in medieval times, when blood was believed to be the carrier of genetic information, there did not exist the precise biochemistry necessary to test that hypothesis. As stated before, many scientific discoveries are dependent upon technology which allows us to probe more deeply into reality, thus revealing where previous scientific models fail.

just the word "atom" itself (indivisible)
Again, this is an approximation. Before the discovery of electricity, there was nothing in ordinary experience to indicate that atoms were not indivisible. It wasn’t until J.J. Thompson’s work on cathode ray tubes which demonstrated that electrons, components of atoms, can be stripped from their atoms and emitted. Not until the technology of the cathode ray tube was developed could such an experiment be performed to test the indivisibility hypothesis.

In fact, I bet you would be able to find a large number of people who simply do not believe that lucid dreaming exists.
Probably. However, most people I’ve talked to have either experienced it or believe that it is indeed possible.

There is no objective way to prove its existence (sure you can bring up EEGs or fMRIs conducted on people "lucid dreaming", but there's no way to know for sure whether they were lucid without asking them)
Really? And experiments performed where lucid dreamers are told to move their eyes in a specific pattern upon attainment of lucidity and these patterns are then observed in their rapid eye movement – what are those?

you should never believe that anything science has to offer is guaranteed to be upheld by future generations of scientific progress.
No, you shouldn’t. However, that does not mean the you should not use what science has to offer now when it accurately describes the physical world in a useful and insightful way. If you are waiting for perfection, you will die an unhappy man.

I believe that any idea that can be imagined, should be considered as seriously as any theory that has been "proven" by today's standards--if not, wouldn't we find ourselves in the midst of stagnation?
Sure, you can ask me to consider the idea that flying purple armadillos really exist and just haven’t been discovered yet because when in the proximity of anything else, they have the ability to turn invisible, but I’m not going to go perform experiments to test that hypothesis unless you can present evidence for why you believe it. You have to have a reason for your ideas if you want them to be seriously considered. Just saying, “Well, I imagined it so go test it,” won’t cut it.

I HEARBY CHALLENGE PEREGRINUS TO A PUBLIC DEBATE (retroactively, of course)
I should warn you that that may not be a very wise move. So far, you haven't made a very impressive showing.