Your argument doesn't get any more cogent. Gays are very slightly under-represented in parliament (5% there as opposed to 6% nationally): are you seriously proposing there should be no gay MPs?
And what evidence are you presenting that these 62 evil plutocrats are all or mostly atheists? (Or...
32 MPs out of 650 is just under 5%; in other words, the LGB population is very slightly under-represented in parliament. And you still haven't explained how they relate to atheists controlling everything.
A post which has been edited and considerably expanded since my first reply, but is still nowhere near a substantiation of "almost all major media companies, most politicians and retail company executives and owners are atheists who control what we see and what we don't see."
Serenity, this is nothing short of pitiful.
You make a quite remarkable claim:
"almost all major media companies, most politicians and retail company executives and owners are atheists who control what we see and what we don't see."
and when challenged to support it the best you can come up...
As other posters have pointed out, this does not make it acceptable. "Others have done the same thing but they did it worse" is a pretty feeble defence.
Acceptable to the owners, I have no doubt; I do, however, doubt that enslaved foreigners, or daughters sold into slavery, would have agreed...
So when it suits your purposes, Mosaic law is god's own commandment ("God says anal sex is sinful!"); but when you find yourself having to defend the indefensible, it's all down to "the mentality of people of those times" and not god at all.
... and none of it has anything to do with animal evolution.
Usually at genus level. Hybridisation is far commoner in plants than in animals. Try googling allopolyploidy.
Sadly, it is. Enjoy your life.
Which seems to be a long-winded way of saying no, you are not proposing to defend the views in question.
Can you quote the words with which I insulted you? As opposed, that is, to being critical of the views you expressed?
Oh no, not the ad hominem card again. Look, thoroughbred, I was addressing your opinions. Specifically, your opinion that another poster is " completely ignorant" about gay lifestyles because hers doesn't match what you think a gay lifestyle should be, and your opinion that "the entire gay...
This is getting beyond parody. You are really telling a gay person she is "completely ignorant" about gay lifestyles, because she does not subscribe to your definition of one?
Whilst you, it seems, would rather "the entire gay community" conformed to your prejudiced stereotype.
Why should there be billions? As others have explained, the vast, vast majority of remains just degrade.
As an advance on your earlier post, you have now made clear (well, a little clearer, anyway) that you are asking specifically about human and pre-human remains. Happily, despite most...
Please share your definition of human. If it's Homo sapiens, you have defined away any "other species of human". If it's a member of the genus Homo, we know of several.
You are clutching at straws. Homo erectus remains have been found all over Eurasia, from populations separated by thousands of miles and hundreds of thousands of years. And in every case we are to assume that we have stumbled on yet another anomalous individual, uncannily similar to all the...
That doesn't help your case: highly anomalous cases like acromegalous or microcephalous individuals are less likely still to be present in a very tiny sample.
Probably not stupid, agreed; as much apes as we are. The "absorption into humanity" is much argued about, but has little bearing on...