Pericles,

You are right, I 'assume' God is sentient, thinking and compassionate, etc - in fact embracing all the virtues - as this is how I interpret the 'creation' of 'Man' as being 'in His image'. (Though sadly many do not conform to this 'ideal' for human nature, or even attempt to do so, even when conditions are conducive.)

I bear homage for my existence, accepting that God is beyond human comprehension, and simply live as I think (and believe) I should, in accordance with my understanding of morality and virtue. But I do not subscribe to dogma, and am fully open to science and discovery.

'Life' is still something of a mystery in its origins and development, and I remain open to 'possibilities' beyond current evidence - and see no good reason to discount such possibilities, especially if belief can induce virtuous conduct.

It is most regrettable that many belief systems focus on differences (or use this as an excuse), giving rise to conflict and destruction, and thereby providing a strenuous argument for the adoption of an entirely atheistic and secularist world. It is hard to argue against such a conviction, but I have to wonder if religion is really the cause of such conflict, or rather a lack of virtue, and greed, ambition and self-interest are the real causation. Money (and power) the root of all evil? Surely a review of 'purpose' is warranted.

In my opinion it is not the existence or otherwise of God which causes division, but human nature, and in particular some of those 'junk' genes which predispose some cultures or individuals to focus on 'speciality' and conquest, as against those which predispose to understanding and peaceful co-existence. Heredity vs Environment (culture)? Somehow a solution has to be found. (God willing.)

Advanced culture and 'enlightened' religion are supposed to counter Man's baser instincts, and not to prey upon them; but we live in an imperfect world. A world without religion would have to be colourless and bereft of culture, though possibly more sane.

OLO article "SpongeBob ...." interesting reading on genomics.

This is typical of the many errors made by the religious, Saltpetre.

>>A world without religion would have to be colourless and bereft of culture<<

It does not hold true that, just because your own life may be illuminated by your belief in a supreme "sentient, thinking and compassionate, etc" being, the lives of others are drab and uncultured. Instead, the assertion simple emphasizes the fundamentally blinkered view of life that religion creates. The same blinkeredness, in fact, that allows believers to go to war in the name of their God, without taking a broader view.

It is the same phenomenon as Tebowing, the attribution of favoured status to those who pray for sporting prowess, in case you have been unaware of the story as it has unfolded in the past months. A poll, taken after his team's victory over their wild-card playoff rivals Pittsburgh, showed that 43% of people who had heard of Tebow believed that God had directly helped him in his efforts.

Two aspects of that stand out for me. What would a similar survey have shown after their following week's loss to New England. Would a lower percentage indicate God's fickle nature?

But more than that, what if there had been an equally devout quarterback on Pittsburgh's side? How would God have made his decision?

And that isn't a trivial question. It is the same one that applies to the two "teams" involved in WWI, both of whom believed, quite explicitly, that "God was on their side".

The same belief that insists that we heathens cannot appreciate our lives, and that only Christians can.

Shadow,
Most creationists are well aware, or at least of the opinion, that it was not the Great Flood that simultaneously created all fossils. However, they do accept that as the reason for many of them, if not most. They see value in further investigation of the location of the post flood boundary.

=

Pericles,
Now I know that this thread is supposed to be about Dawkins and his ‘head in the sand’ or bunker attitude towards debating his intellectual opponents. It’s not necessarily supposed to be a focus on an apologist for creationism. Yet you seem a little preoccupied with trying to figure me out.

“No-one who reads your posts could accuse you of lacking in the conviction department” (Pericles, 25/2/2011).
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814#109411

“As always, my thanks for the further illumination of Christian thinking. That is of course if you do actually believe it all, and are not simply amusing yourself by playing with our credulity” (Pericles, 15/1/2012).

So are you having difficulty clarifying your own opinion of me?

– “Possibilities, based on facts and evidence.”
Saltpetre, I with you. So many possibilities. And we do our best to make sense of them using the facts and the evidence. This leads, as Pericles mentions, to why there are so many “people who fit the facts into theories.”

But Salpetre, have you so quickly abandoned the idea of proof? In your previous post you insisted four times that the theory of evolution was “proven”. Now you talk about “possibilities”.

Previously you said that “Wildlife demographic distribution supports evolution as a proven theory.” After I pointed out the problem with the opossum, you say that, “South America and Australia were once part of the supercontinent of Gondwana, hence common Opossum ancestry is reasonable.”

Well, if you want to take this Gondwana idea further, it’s theorised (and I think it was creationists historically that first proposed this idea) that all the continents were once connected. So if they were once connected, then the “possibilities” of any animal immigrating just about anywhere are virtually endless. So this is going to make using any argument based on the demographic distribution of wildlife quite malleable. Possibilities increase, inversely affecting the chances of developing a watertight “proven theory”.

But I’m open to you suggesting some line of thinking that might demonstrate proof of evolution from demographic distribution of wildlife.

Applying population growth statistics to the global population brings no surprises to the creationist model of history. Like the ‘half-life’ of radioactive decay, the increase is geometric. That is to say, people multiply, like the saying, ‘go forth and multiply’. During different eras people have had varying sized families, but populations double roughly at growth rate divided by 69 years. Hence 3% growth rate, 69/3 = 23 years to double the population.

So the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives after the Flood about 4,500 years ago would be less than 0.5% per year growth. That’s quite reasonable.

And you bring up carbon dating as an ‘old bugbear’ without giving any response to what I last said about it.

That was a year ago, Dan S de Merengue.

>>“No-one who reads your posts could accuse you of lacking in the conviction department” (Pericles, 25/2/2011)<<

After a while, the veneer of conviction starts to look a little too... how shall I put it... forced, to be as genuine as you would have us all believe.It might be the constant repetition of dodgy evidence. Or it might be your careful avoidance of addressing those questions where you would be unable to respond without looking totally ridiculous.

It is still difficult to take you at all seriously. The fact that breakthroughs in science and learning are occasionally made by people holding outlandish theories, does not mean that every outlandish theory leads to a scientific breakthrough, as you occasionally attempt to imply. They remain what they are; outlandish theories held by folk who are, by their own admission, trapped into accepting nothing that does not conform to their narrow range of thought processes.

>>So are you having difficulty clarifying your own opinion of me?<<

Less so, these days.

Dan,

Yes, apparently the two supercontinents were joined (510-180 Mya) as one mega-continent, and as they separated Gondwana moved south and itself started separating around 200-180 Mya (although it had apparently already 'sutured' circa 570-510 Mya) - and eventually movement of tectonic plates over many millions of years brought all as we find it today.

(Reference note: I am not able to dispute the validity of carbon dating, and therefore am assuming it provides reasonable accuracy up to around 60,000 years BP (before the present). Earlier aging, of fossils for example, I expect to have been assessed on the basis of mineralisation and associated geological strata. I don't know how the aging of the Earth, Gondwana, the supercontinents and present-day continents has been established, and therefore accept current reports in this regard. I am unaware if these millenia agings are significantly in dispute.)

“Wildlife demographic distribution supports evolution as a proven theory.” The most reasonable explanation for marsupials being predominant in Aus, and for the even stranger native flora and fauna of NZ, and the near absence of native placentals in both (bats appear the only exception), is that placental mammals had not evolved by the time Gondwana separated from the mega-continent. Geographic isolation also explains the unique flora and fauna of the Galapagos and many other isolated islands, on the basis that they had only achieved a low-moderate 'evolutionary base' when these land masses became sufficiently separated from others such that 'immigration' of higher-level flora and fauna became limited or impossible.

Similarly, evolution explains the predominance of top-level placentals in Africa and Asia, the varied and parallel placental predominance in North and South America, and the existence of some similar but more ancient breeds (rhino/elephant) in Indonesia and Borneo.

Evolution is the best explanation for this distribution. 'Creation' would have God 'choosing' such a varied distribution - but, why?

Note: Placentals out-compete lower mammals, with few exceptions, and cause their extinction. Hence, no marsupials in Africa, and few outside Aus/PNG. NZ - Moa, but no marsupial.

Pericles,

Methinks you misinterpret me. All must believe in something.