DSM,

The evidence is clearly against mammals and dinosaurs co existing for all but the last dinosaurs and the first mammals. There was no great flood that simultaneously created all fossils, and that you even try to claim this means that you only accept the information that supports your views.

Pericles,
Yes, you listen. But you don’t listen with the intention of understanding. Any argument must be evaluated within its own points of reference and parameters. I don’t think you are willing to go onto the other person’s turf and measure the evidence from another perspective.

However, I’m glad you were willing to admit your bias. I don’t know why you would say I don’t make allowance for my own bias. I stated very explicitly, very early in this discussion, what my bias was, and from what perspective I’m coming. [It's true, I'm partisan. I'm happy to defend a Christian position. Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 23 November 2011 9:20:50 PM]

If, as you say, you are aiming to better understand my thought processes, then I think I am achieving much. Open discussion naturally leads to better understanding, which can only be healthy. And I think that is the purpose of this website. Here, we share opinions from different perspectives. If I measured success by whether I was able to convince the other person of my perspective, I would be on a hiding to nothing. We know each other better than that.

No one is claiming that by simply looking at the rocks themselves would lead you to the conclusion that there was this guy called Noah, and he built an ark to put all the animals in. Yet I am saying that the Noahic flood story is naturally consistent with the fossil evidence. And stories do come first. Facts are fit into stories. As you said yourself, (Pericles, 16/12), people “fit the facts into theories”, more so than it being the other way around.

As always, I look forward to your response.

Dan,

".. stories do come first. Facts are fit into stories."

So many stories, so much belief, but do the facts fit?

I'm not sure why 'evolution' has to be such a bugbear, for it is little at odds with the relevant messages or 'stories'. 'God created Man' may be interpreted as the giving of the gift of sentience, or of higher thought or conscience (or possibly of genetic manipulation, ID?), but this need not be extended to include the individual 'creation' of all life on Earth - for a 'beginning' may have proved sufficient. Did not life come before the stories? (And the story represent an explanation, after the fact?)

'In His own image' is far more likely to refer to sentience, thought, emotion, love, compassion, empathy and conscience (regard for one's own and other life, and morality) than to mean literal physical form and genome - is it not so?

Can the Noah episode not be just a highly embellished message to embrace respect for all life? And a message of one male bonded to one female as an ideal? 'Go forth ..'

Rainbow Serpent, Elephant god, Zeus, Poseidon .. Many stories, gods, beliefs - but only one true God, and only one true story? Some 'facts' fit one particular story (and only one that I am aware of) - the recorded miracles performed by Jesus, and the Resurrection. But how much beyond such 'facts' is it reasonable to extrapolate?

Man's hand writing the words and thoughts of God (for I am unaware of any writings in Jesus' hand, or even by His immediate followers during his lifetime). Many worthy messages on how and why to lead a good life, and to have respect, to bear no grudge, and to be a good neighbour. But of all belief systems which, if any, has best consistently honoured this code, and best honours it now?

We have much yet to learn, but it will surely most importantly be facts which will guide that journey, rather than our clinging to the past. Even stories must evolve to maintain conviction and relevance.

That's more than a little cheeky, Dan S de Merengue.

>>And stories do come first. Facts are fit into stories. As you said yourself, (Pericles, 16/12), people “fit the facts into theories”, more so than it being the other way around.<<

I did not say "more so than it being the other way around" as your phrasing implies.

But no matter. It is true that theories occasionally precede their proof - Higgs boson is a good example - but those theories are based upon the results of factual observation. Where there is a "gap" in the overall picture, a theory is formed that fits the known facts, and experiments (e.g. Large Hadron Collider) are established to verify - or disprove - that theory.

Here's a "one-page summary" of the theory, that illustrates the process I just described.

http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs1.htm

>>No one is claiming that by simply looking at the rocks themselves would lead you to the conclusion that there was this guy called Noah<<

That's fortunate, but it does illustrate the difference between a story and a theory.

"Simply by looking at the rocks", it has been possible to develop ever-clearer pictures of how life has evolved on this planet. The evidence developed the story, not the other way around. As I pointed out, it is not possible to begin with the same rocks, and discover Noah.

Similarly, "simply by looking at the stars", we have been gradually building a picture of how the universe has developed over many billions of years. You may assert that they were all put there a few thousand years ago by a supreme being, but you can only do so by presupposing the existence of that supreme being.

>>If I measured success by whether I was able to convince the other person of my perspective, I would be on a hiding to nothing.<<

That's certainly an acute observation.

Has it occurred to you that it might be your perspective that is the problem, rather than your powers of persuasion?

Saltpetre,
Conspiracy is your word, not mine.

You say it’s absurd that different types of mammals have always co-existed. You yourself admit that the ‘higher’ mammals were in competition with the ‘lower’ mammals. So if they were in competition, then they must have co-existed. How else would they compete? So I’m struggling to comprehend your point.

You make a good case for placental mammals being hardier than marsupial or monotreme mammals. Extinction has been a common occurrence throughout the history of the world. I can well understand that certain animals are more capable of surviving certain circumstances and environments, but explaining how or why they became extinct is not an explanation of how monotremes, marsupials, or placental mammals came about in the first place.

If all you’re talking about is natural selection, then this is a regular occurrence perceived by both evolutionists and creationists for quite a long time. Natural selection was a phenomenon observed and documented by creation scientists well before Darwin published. Yet it doesn’t have the ability to explain how microbes became people.

You say embryonic spinal cords are similar across different mammals, a bit more dissimilar for other categories of animals. So are Porches similar to VW Beetles in some of their engineering and components. That’s not surprising if they’re made by the same European car designer. Similar design, same designer. It’s not an explanation unique to evolution.

Design, accident, or evolution? Which is the closest fit? So you say. It sounds like you think it deserves further investigation.

Your last post contained many theological issues. Any of these might be interesting to delve into, but to try and limit things, for me, I think this thread is concerned mainly with arguments concerning the existence of God. You ask why evolution is such an issue for me. The reason is that I see the creation evolution debate as where the rubber hits the road for any theistic and atheistic discussion. In the battle of the creation myths, it’s where theory meets hard evidence

By the way, Saltpetre, I don’t think you appreciated the numbers involved in the population growth argument.

Allow for a small group of 10 aboriginal people who may have migrated to Australia from across the sea. They multiply at a rate that increases their population by 0.5% per year. After 1000 years, would give them an expected population of 1465, and after 10000 years, would give them an expected population of over 45773 billion billion.

Going from 8 to 16 people over a certain period is not many. 3 billion to 6 billion over the same time is quite marked. Yet it is the same growth rate. Such is the power of multiplication. People tend to multiply, for well known biological reasons.

At the time of European arrival it is estimated there was possibly as few as 300 000 in the aboriginal population across the vast continent of Australia. This number is consistent with a history of a few thousand years but is ridiculously small for 40000 years of existence. There’s nothing in the Australian environment that would limit their numbers to so few, even for subsistence existence. If you have evidence for how or why they were limiting their growth rate to virtually nothing for so long, than I would be curious to hear it.