Macro evolution can actually be reasonably argued based on extrapolating micro evolution. When we have a mechanism we understand (micro evolution) and the large timeframe neccesary to have macro evolution, you have to explain what will magically stop micro evolution from happening.
You are simply asserting that it will, and claiming that puts the burden of evidence on the scientist to explain how it keeps going; that is not true.
Let me explain by an analogy why your way of arguing does not work.
Let us say I want to explain to you how a rifle works, and you agree that the burning of gun powder in a rifles explosion chamber (or whatever else its called), can move a bullet.
You now argue that even though the method of propelling the bullet works, it can never move the bullet more than 100 yards.
I show you the math that explains that the bullet leaving the barrel has enough kinetic energy to fly say, 8000 yards.
I have in this example already explained how the bullet flies more than 100 yards, and since you are the one who claims a magical barrier at this point, it is on you to explain what that barrier is and how it works.


That was a lot of text, especially considering, that the validity of the theory of evolution does not even matter.
You are trying to inject as false parameter with it. It is not the theory of evolution that is the evidence of the possibility of life arising elsewhere in the universe.
It is the existence of life itself.
If you do not agree that the observation of event A proves that event A CAN take place, I don’t know how we can move forward.
You would be defending a very strange position indeed if you take that stance.


You are making my argument here.
Yes there are plenty of people who THINK gods existence is a meaningful possibility they do not have any concrete evidence backing up that claim though.

My whole claim ITT is, that a conclusion based on hard evidence is more reliable, that a conclusion based on naked assertion.
I don’t see how this can even be disputed.

You've been linked to the 29+ evidences for macroevolution a few times: have you read it?

Here's an interesting one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

Basically, humans have this broken gene that doesn't let us properly process vitamin C. Most animals have that gene (so they don't get scurvy for example). Who do we share this broken gene with? Our closest relatives: some of those higher primates. This strongly suggests that we ALL inherited this broken gene from a common ancestor.

You have a funny way of saying, "Thanks for providing the evidence that I demanded earlier in this thread. You are right, religion (or at least this one religion) does ask it's followers to disregard logic."

Edit: But at least you acknowledge it. Which is more than some of the religious regulars around here would have!

I understand now. You think the existence of the god of the bible is illogical and therefore any claimed miracles performed by said god are therefore illogical.

People are always associating me with Pletho and it bugs the hell out me.

People should be allowed to believe in aliens if they want..... doesn't effect me either way.

If they get enjoyment or peace from believing in other life forms...so be it.

You will care after they pass laws you dont like according to their alien revelations.

If aliens don't exist then the "revelations" or ideas are not alien in orgin.

If bibilical ideas are not from God then they are human ideas. Whats the point? A law that outlaws sodomy on biblical grounds would have been implemented anyways even if there was never a bible. Some other rationale would have been used.

Can I prove that? No. Its just speculation on my part.

Well if a law outlawing sodomy comes form anywhere else i will complain about that. Until than i will complain about where it comes from.

All laws come from the same place. The imagination of human beings.

I don’t see the secular humanist governments of western Europe lining up to regulate peoples sex life by law.

I agree. And thats what im complaining about peoples ideas. It just so happens people form into groups sometimes and have group ideas so i complain about those groups too.

You mean there are no regulations against rape, incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, and necrophilia in any of these secular humanist countries of western europe?

If they are then they are regulating peoples sexs lives.

You forgot marriage laws which give benefits to people who properly engaged in governmental sanctioned sex.

You were arguing specifically that homosexuality would be outlawed even without a religious justification; I would say that the fact that secular governments are fine with homosexuality contradicts this.

Now there are plenty of people making crack pot statements about personal contact with aliens, based on horrendous evidence, which is clearly unjustified.
When we talk about people, who simply believe there is a good chance if life elsewhere in the universe, on the other hand, it is deeply ironic that you think you have a position to be patronizing from.
As I explained in a previous post ITT, there is absolutely nothing strange about finding it likely, that the processes that created life on earth did so on other planets elsewhere in the universe; there are quite a few to choose from you know.
Life elsewhere in the universe violates none of our current knowledge; the existence of a god throws reality as we know it out the window.

Your attitude is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. If you are able to be convinced Christianity is truer based on the available evidence, there are very few people you are in a position to call credulous.

And if our alien group said they had revelations that these things are ok and passed laws according to those revelations you wouldn't complain or speak out against that group or try to change those laws because someone else would of just made them anyway?

This is true in many Muslim countries because the Qur'an isn't any more tolerant of homosexuality than the Bible is. But as Skalf pointed out, it simply hasn't happened in secular countries.

Other than religion, what rationale could anybody use to persecute homosexuals?

Believing that there is or may be life on other planets is not even remotely similar to believing in God.

The education system in these countries teach their children to be tolerant. I would suggest that the reason they do this is because the brains of people are wired to be intolerant.

Amoung secular countries, homosexuality is tolerated to varying degrees. In North Korea, for instance, it is only nominally tolerated.

What rationale do they use in Cuba, which is officially a secular state?

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/..._life_in_cuba/

Ms.Stephanie Wells how come your not responding to my posts.

"...and thou shalt disregard all logic, or face eternal damnation..."

That doesn't ring a bell.

You'd need a lot more than one example, and preferably from a country that doesn't have a massive Catholic population. Turkey is secular and they might have such a law, but again, massive Muslim population. A country declaring itself as secular does not mean that its leaders are not influenced by their religious beliefs.

And actually, the fact that there are any secular countries that do not have anti-sodomy laws ruins your thesis that anti-sodomy laws would occur without religious input. And the fact is not only that there are some such countries, but that there are lots and lots of such countries.

There really is no reason to be against homosexuality other than because your holy book of choice tells you to be against homosexuality.