Rational belief

[theVOID]

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

Nice video *subscribed*

I agree with everything in there so far, though it really does not stop the argument from primitive interpretation, that being the people who wrote the book were importing their hypothesis into the holy book and attributing it to God.

A Christian can easily claim that this is just primitive interpretation of theistic creation, just as they claim similar phenomenon for the barbaric laws, the incest etc, how would you respond to that?

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

So both personal incredulity and mystery... Again, why do you think that a belief contingent on these fallacies is rational?

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.

And your 'believing heart' is what?

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).

Ok sure it's not incompatible with Deism, but what reasons do you have for thinking that Deism is a part of this? It seems like this is a view contingent on your initial acceptance of deism, which seems to me to be an emotional reason, unless i am mistaken?

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?

Where did the deity tweak? Assuming that such deistic action is necessary you must have an example of a biological process you believe is not accounted for with natural selection? Do you believe that improved respiratory systems are contingent upon a deity? And how does this sit with animals that have better respiratory systems?

Also, if a deity were to tweak tending towards human perfection, how do you explain the many life forms that live longer, are faster, stronger, produce less birth defects, have better eyesite etc? The only attributes we have that seem to be particularly unique are high-level intelligence and social ethics, and the latter could easily be the product of high-level intelligence combined with normal sociality in mammals.

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.

LMAO i'm pretty sure that whole "rectal sweet spot" would be the stimulation of the prostate from beyond the rectal wall.

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

Nope, it's a stupid argument

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:

Wow, at first i thought this argument was humor... Natural selection promotes social structures, homosexual families do not violate this beneficial trait, but they don't add anything to it either, in fact the lack of a reproductive ability means that whilst it's not all bad socially, it certainly does not contribute to the continuation of the gene pool.

Firstly, your understanding of natural selection seems to be fundamentally flawed you said "things are the way they are because that's the way the environment is and things have adapted to the environment" As in "giraffes adapted to the tall trees" But nothing has adapted to the environment, rather the species that developed mutations that were beneficial were more likely to survive the environmental pressures - The giraffe's with longer necks has a better change of finding food and thus were more likely to pass on the randomly mutated gene that increases neck size.

When applied to your homosexual example, we would not expect homosexuality, or any other trait that is non-beneficial, to arise to deal with environmental pressures (as you implied happens), rather these mutations find their place amongst species with sufficiently beneficial genes and simply hang on for the ride. We have many genetic functions that are artifacts, carried on not because they aid survival, but because they happen to be part of the genetic makeup of a species with enough genes selected against the environment to be survive long enough to reproduce and thus to pass on not just the beneficial genes, but also the non-beneficial genetic artifacts.

Homosexuality is one of the many artifacts of natural selection. At the time it occurred it was not detrimental to the society continuing to function, thus it was not selected against. This will be why you don't see homosexuality in non-social animals as it would necessarily exclude the ability to reproduce and pass on the genes.

My thinking is that bi-sexuality is what allowed the gene to pass down, in fact it was widely believed to have occurred before homosexuality, and it was just one of the many benign but non-beneficial genes in the lineage of a species.