http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba

Cuba's birth rate (9.88 births per thousand population in 2006)[132] is one of the lowest in the Western Hemisphere. Its overall population has increased continuously from around 7 million in 1961 to over 11 million now, but the increase has stopped in the last few decades, and a decrease began in 2006, with a fertility rate of 1.43 children per woman.[133] This drop in fertility is among the largest in the Western Hemisphere.[134] Cuba has unrestricted access to legal abortion and an abortion rate of 58.6 per 1000 pregnancies in 1996, compared to an average of 35 in the Caribbean, 27 in Latin America overall, and 48 in Europe. Contraceptive use is estimated at 79% (in the upper third of countries in the Western Hemisphere).[135]

If catholicism were as influential as you think it is why then does Cuba have such high contraceptive use rates? Why then does Cuba have a high abortion rate? Catholicism condemns these as much or even more so than homosexuality.

The reason homosexuality is criminalized in Cuba has little to do with catholicism. It criminalized because of a lack of free speech. The homosexual community in cuba doesn't have the means to fight for thier rights. If the homosexual community in Europe was denied free speech, it would still be criminalized there too.

We can go round and round on this if you want to, Stephanie. I could point out that lack of free speech is surely part of why it is still illegal, but that doesn't speak to why it was made illegal in the first place, by a group of leaders from a largely Catholic background.

But it really doesn't matter. Fine, I'll just grant you that Cuba is a secular country that does not condone homosexuality. It really doesn't help your argument.

Again, your assertion was, "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."

You would need to be able to show that all countries have anti-sodomy laws whether they've been exposed to the Bible (or some other anti-gay propaganda like the Qur'an) or not in order to prove that thesis. Those countries not exposed to such propaganda would still have anti-sodomy laws.

And the fact is that many nations do not have any such law. It is simply not the case that anti-sodomy laws are prevalent in non-religious places.

Keep in mind the bolded part below

It is speculation on my part because intolerance to homosexuality is not intrinsic to religion. It is something that was incorporated into religion. If religion didn't exist, that intolerance would have been incorporated into whatever filled the void. Not in every instance, but in some.

Is it your position that intolerance to homosexuality has been incorporated into every religion or just some?

I stopped responding because I didn't think any of your last few posts were wrong. But to please you I will respond to this one.

If I thought those revelations were againsts my best interest I would complain or speak out if I could do so safely. Like I said free speech has done more for civil rights than secular humanism.

Stu/Stephanie Wells,

I kind of like you as a poster, so a heads up that using multiple 2+2 accounts is an IP-banable offense.

You have been warned.

I thought its only a problem if done in the transfers thread? Stephanie hasn't tried to scam anyone has she?

it has happened before in the past, especially if the gimmick is lame/annoying/trolling. Its usually up to the mod's discretion, but i wonder why Stu would take the risk. Regardless, using a gimmick will get you permabanned if either your main account is currently banned, or you use your gimmick to break any of the forum rules.

Fair enough, and I agree that homophobia was incorporated into religion.

Not necessarily. There have been many societies throughout history that have openly practiced homosexuality or bisexuality or even pedophilia. Ancient Greece and Rome are just two.

Oh no, Buddhism has no problem with homosexuality and I think Taoism doesn't either. Not sure about Hinduism and Jainism.

The homophobia seems to be an Abrahamic religions thing.

No I wont...I'll just move to another planet if it bothers me so much.

zing

Only if I asserted that magic will stop micro from extending to macro, which I do not.

It is correct that I am merely asserting (i.e. without observational evidence) that micro cannot be extrapolated to macro. On the other hand, we live in times (which, for the sake of real science, I hope will soon pass) where in some quarters it passes for science to merely assert that micro can be extended to macro.

What? This is just the sort of reducibility to observable phenomena the pseudo-scientific "evolution" mechanism lacks.

The potential for a ballistic object to continue its trajectory is 1) based on repeated observations of it actually happening and 2) expressible as a physical consequence of exclusively measurable variables present at every point in its path. The supposed potential of micro-evolution to extend to macro-evolution has neither of these.

If you're going to claim that micro extending to macro is like a bullet proceeding from a gun, you need to actually make that argument based on physical facts, not just handwave the equivalence in with a puff of smoke.

What again? What we observe is the existence of life, which no one in disputing.

They may not have "concrete" evidence, but maybe they have other, even better, evidence. Now who's injecting a false parameter?

Nice strawman. No one is claiming God exists based on naked assertion. The claim is made based on evidence you don't accept, since it does not meet your arbitrary (i.e. not established through evidence) standard for what constitutes evidence.

Or, it strongly suggests we don't know the entire function of this not-really-broken gene, and we have it in common with species that resemble us for one of the reasons they resemble us.

As a means of distinguishing common descent from common design, the "broken gene" argument, like the entire loltalkorigins website, is a fail.

While the argument itself may not be illogical, it'd be pretty irrational to believe it as truth, since there is extremely little evidence or reason to suggest the existence of a Holy Ghost.

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. When you have the gene present in most animals, and broken in a similar way in our nearest ancestors/cousins, I don't think you can just dismiss it out of hand like you have with an LOL.

I'

I was using magic in the sense sudden and inexplicable.
I don’t think you fully realize the implication of your claim that micro evolution will automatically stop at some predestined threshold of transformation.


What is your justification for this assertion?
The people that claim micro does become macro over time are not just asserting, they are simply coming to the logical conclusion, that when we have a known mechanism for change and nothing stopping it, change will continue to occur. If you believe something comes along and stops the evolutionary process, you have to explain what that something is.


I had really hoped you would consider my rifle example seriously, I think it quite clearly illustrates the problem.
I my original post I focused on the fact, that we can measure the energy of the bullet; we do not have to observe it. Science is not based entirely on first hand observation; we can extrapolate from previously established phenomena.
We know that random mutation occurs, and that it in combination with natural selection causes changes.
There is nothing we know of that will stop those changes from occurring at any particular point in time. If you believe there is such a mechanism please state it.
There is no hand waving in my argument; you are the one who claims to know the exact amount of genetic change that will happen to a population, no matter the time frame or conditions.
This despite the fact that you are not even able to give a mechanism that causes this.
How is that for lofty claims?



The claim is, that the existence of life proves that life can arise, you want to focus on how it happens, but that is not even relevant, the fact that it has happened proves it can happen, and therefore there is nothing extraordinary about believing it likely, that life could arise elsewhere in the universe.


They have no evidence but they have something even more convincing? Bring it.
Joking aside, you only accept the supernatural evidence that tells you what you want to hear.
Muslims and Hindus has evidence just as strong as yours, and yet you have no problem brushing it aside without even looking, not to mention that attempting to find meaningful answers, by attributing a supernatural cause, has a success rate of zero so far.
There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about demanding concrete evidence, all the knowledge we have been able to gather has been based on that.



I realize this was not part of our discussion, but it it illustrates amazingly well just how strong the willful ignorance can be.


Cliffs: There is evidence that life can arise in this universe and no evidence of the existence of any gods, this makes the claim "there is probably life elsewhere in the universe" more plausible than the claim "there is probably a god".

Sounds like something worth thinking about...

Cuba is a communist dictatorship. Its laws do not represent the will of the people. They represent the will of the dictator.

I assume this includes gods laws, and hence the entirety of the bible is based on the imagination of human beings? Get on the horn, we can have all this silly religious nonsense cleared up in five minutes.

According to your beliefs, religion/God is a man made invention. Therefore a bias against homosexuality must have existed wholly apart from religion at one point as it would have had to have been injected into religion for reasons other than religious reasons.

Meaning that people at one point in time had something against homosexuality without religious influence. So it is perfectly reasonable to believe that bias against homosexuality would exist today even if religion had not.

So your position appears to be self-refuting.

The lol was for talkorigins, not a way of dismissing your "broken" claim which is merely a subjective characterization until you show this gene to serve no purpose by being in this apparently "broken" state.

I don't claim that. My claim is that the "evolution" illusionists are trying a slight of hand through extrapolation without observation. If your claim is that all one need do is let micro run for a while to get macro, you need to show your work. This has not been done, "what would stop it?" arguments from ignorance notwithstanding.

The insufficiency of evidence for a reducibility of macro- to micro-evolution, for starters. There are others but that is enough for this discussion.

You do have a mechanism for change. You do not have nothing stopping it.

In science, you don't have anything without observation. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I did address the rifle example and explained in detail how the "evolution" mumbo-jumbo is not equivalent to it. In fact, I'm glad you chose that illustration because it makes my point well.

Of course. No strawmen, please.

How did you determine the value of concrete evidence (using means other than concrete evidence, of course)?

Just an assertion, really. More like a declaration of faith. Any statement beginning with "all the knowledge we have been able to gather" would self-disqualify here, since no one even knows what that is. Using this phrase certainly puts your assertion outside the scope of concrete evidence, ironically.

More argument by mere assertion. Perhaps because you now realize that "my evidence counts and your evidence does not" arguments must, of logical necessity, be either circular or arbitrarily without both sides agreeing on what constitutes evidence. You will flap your arms all day long without liftoff otherwise.

Great. Move to Nigeria.

No, the point is that its the same gene: whatever its purpose, and it appears in humans and our closest relatives, and in very few other animals. Let's say we figure out that it has a function: as long as its the same function, the point stands. It's an inherited trait through a common ancestor.

Sorry to butt in here, but I'm reading what you're saying as a claim that the evidence for life in the universe is equal to that of the existence of a god. Do you feel that way? If I'm misunderstanding what you're saying can you please correct me?

But what does any of this have to do with the reality we live in today in the US.

Right now there are Christians who say that bible says being gay is a sin. Right now there are Christians groups protecting and trying to pass laws keeping gays from being equal and using the bible to justify that view.

As long as this is the reality we live in and someone disagrees with that view why would they not speak out against those people and the bases for their views?

This whole it would of could of happened anyway seems like a sidestep to what many Christians themselves say. Which is they dont think gays should be treated equally because God said being gay is a sin. That this view could come about in another world/reality is kind of meaningless.

Sure, a bias against people that are different from us in any way is a natural thing that has probably served some evolutionary function. It's been observed even in little kids.

Well, of course. I never said homophobia did not exist outside of religion; it obviously does. All I objected to was the blanket statement Stephanie made that anti-sodomy laws would have been created without religion under some other pretense. That has simply not been the case in the majority of places that are not dominated by Christians, Jews, or Muslims.

If we could gather up all the people in the world that think homosexuality is morally wrong and somehow force them to answer honestly, I would be willing to bet that over 95% of them will point to their religious text as the reason they think it is wrong.

I'm not saying religion caused homophobia. But it has certainly spread it around with a thick brush.

As mentioned, the whole evolution sidetrack is actually unimportant to my main point, but I will give it one more shot; my final point, as I can see there is no reasoning.
I wrote "Science is not based entirely on first hand observation; we can extrapolate from previously established phenomena."
To which you responded:

But that is exactly what you are demanding. The only difference between micro and macro is timeframe.
If you would simply admit that you reject it because your religious beliefs demand it that would be it.
Insisting that we need millions of years of direct observation is clearly a dishonest way of rejecting the theory of evolution.