Rational belief

[DeistPaladin]

You mean incompatible with the literal interpretation of Genesis?

The metaphoric or poetic interpretation doesn't work either. My video on that subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTlSVk3LCYA

Also, how is it rational to believe in a deity with no evidence for his intervention nor any logical necessity? It seems to me like you are committing a fallacy, that being an argument from personal incredulity.

Not true. It also is an appeal to wonder too.

Seriously, there are some powerful instincts at work here and I've already admitted as much in other threads. I guess you could say deism is a truce between my believing heart and skeptical mind. I can feel a sense of awe at the grand machine and yet keep it real, grounded in the natural universe.

I highly recommend the Grand Design btw, it's a very good summary of the reasons for thinking M-Theory is true, as well as a look at the implications of such a theory.

I do intent to pick that book up or listen to an audio.

Right, and we have a theory that is entirely capable of explaining all such phenomenon to a high degree of accuracy while not depending on the existence of a deity in any way. Seeing a such a comprehensive theory exists explaining the mechanism, for what reason do you think a deity must have had a presence in this process?

I accept evolution as fact. My study of evolution is part of my sense of awe. First, we seem to be progressing ever forward, not just in cranial capacity but also in morality as well. This dovetails well with the optimism of traditional deism in thinking humanity has a noble destiny (stark contrast to the end-time aspects of the Islamo-Christian faith).

Additionally, when I say "so much came together", I refer even to little developments, like how we lost our body hair, reducing the need for panting and enabling more sophisticated communication. I accept evolution but that doesn't preclude a deity tweeking the process here or there. Were we just lucky?

You wanna clarify? I've never heard the 'argument from men sucking cock' before

OK, you know the Ray and Kurt banana argument? Outward indications of being ready for consumption? Nice handle that fits perfectly in the hand? Fits in the mouth? And unlike the problem of wild bananas, the seeds aren't a problem. Additionally, there's the "sweet spot" in the rectum. It apparently substitutes for a clitoris so well that I hear-tell that some men can climax without even the need for the reach around. Talk about what can't be explained by natural selection alone.

At this point, I assume that many atheist readers are anxious to return to the subject about the watch in the desert...

Seriously, my proposed proof has more to do with the value of gays to a larger society, not the sex act itself. Gay adoption in particular, both in human society and elsewhere in the animal kingdom, benefits society where it is allowed but the benefits are so indirect that natural selection alone seems inadequate. I have a video that goes into greater detail here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQJWjYZLEcs