This isn't exactly unique to dolphins. Vampire bats have been seen reguritating blood for those who hadn't eaten. Or sterile worker bees giving their lives for the queen and colony. Monkey's sharing food or being attacked when they don't share. Etc. Etc. If I'm not mistaken the behavior troubled Darwin greatly as evolution glorified the individual.

Evolutionist have always strived to resolve this problem and make it jibe with "survival of the fittest". I believe Dawkins proposed some kind of 'kin selection', but has been rejected due to all manner of cooperation in the animal kingdom. It is indeed the contradictory explanation of evolutionists that moral acts are motivated by immorality that such explanations often fail. Helpful animals do not fit a purposeless evolution theory.

Ironically there is no conflict with altruism in nature in a Biblical context: John 15:13; Philippians 2:2-4. God put all the animals on this planet and declared them good. They glorify Him, and fulfill ecological roles He placed on them. Helping other creatures to maintain that role falls very well under a Creationist look on the world, rather than an evolutionary explanation where nothing really has a role or that the dolphin would have been better off to keep on swimming.

EB,

This isn't exactly unique to dolphins.

i agree, but the examples you mention are more explicable - i.e. there is a clear benefit for an animal to preserve the life and health of another member of its family group or community.  Expending energy to preserve the life of a member of a different species is harder to explain.

It is indeed the contradictory explanation of evolutionists that moral acts are motivated by immorality that such explanations often fail. Helpful animals do not fit a purposeless evolution theory.

'Moral acts motivated by immorality' is highly subjective.  And while it may be difficult to understand why animals behave in certain ways (let alone humans), the fact that something does not immediately seem to fit with a certain theory does not necessarily mean that it does not fit.

Ironically there is no conflict with altruism in nature in a Biblical context: John 15:13; Philippians 2:2-4. God put all the animals on this planet and declared them good. They glorify Him, and fulfill ecological roles He placed on them. Helping other creatures to maintain that role falls very well under a Creationist look on the world, rather than an evolutionary explanation where nothing really has a role or that the dolphin would have been better off to keep on swimming.

   Yeah, that's really not ad hoc at all - if animals are there to glorify god and help one another to fulfil that role the i'm puzzled why they spend so much of their time killing and eating each other.

i don't pretend to have all the answers.  That is where you and i differ most obviously.



SaintJohnny,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to evolution aren't humans also animals?

   Wow, you're right - that's a stupid idea.  i will return at once to the belief that humans are made in the image of god, totally different from animals, just coincidentally built on the same basic body plan as mammals with virtually identical organs and DNA to primates and even many of the same basic behaviours and instincts.  No, hang on - that's even stupider...

In the first place, just as you would point out that there is much more to the picture then a talking ass, a single- or a handful- of apparent altruistic behaviors achieves just a little.   For example, in this case the altruism is rightly summed up by 'risking life' but how well do we know to what degree the dolphin understood it was putting its life at risk?

That's a very reasonable point.  All we can say for sure is that the dolphin expended energy in order to (apparently) rescue two fellow mammals.  Maybe it wasn't a rescue - maybe he/she just went over to have a look what was going on and then left the same way, followed by the whales.  The appearence is of an altruistic action though, right?

If objectors to evolution insist that evolutionary theory demands that there shouldn't be altruistic behavior- among animals or among humans (remembering that in evolutionary terms that is a false distinction) and evolutionists themselves have basically struggled with the same problem, then the observation of altruism among non-human animals does not show that altruism is not as 'unnatural' as previously supposed but rather casts further doubt on evolutionary theory.

i would say that the incident (taken at face value) is a puzzle whatever one's ideological standpoint - if they're intellectually honest about it, that is.  Either someone like me can wonder how evolutionary theory explains such apparently non-selfish behaviour without invoking kin selection (which obviously wouldn't apply with members of a different species) or someone like you can wonder whether humans and animals are after all as separate and different as your beliefs would suggest.

"Like homosexuality, if altruism is found in the animal kingdom then it can't very well be evolutionarily 'unnatural' can it."

Sure, if we already know that evolutionary theory is the true account.

Forgive me for framing a question in my own terms of reference.  

However if it is maintained that homosexuality and altruism is logically inconsistent with the theory then the empirical observation that they exist actually serves to undermine the theory, not strengthen it.

Yes, 'if'.  i am quite happy that homosexuality is not logically inconsistent with evolutionary theory (and yeah, i know i said i wasn't going to go there), but extra-species altruism is a more difficult one.  However, guess what - i'm not going to abandon my belief that evolutionary theory is the correct way to understand the diversity of life just because i've come up with something i cant explain.  i could hypothesise and guess, but i'm not going to do that - i think that would be more intellectually dishonest than just labelling it a potential problem and moving on.  One of the very reasons i posted this item was that it puzzled me.

There are different ways of handling it when a problem or issue is raised with a theory or idea that you firmly believe in.  For example, in my current debate with End Bringer, the subject of the differing geneologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke has come up.  EB is so convinced of the truth of the bible that he offers me a bunch of potential explanations for this problem, none of which have anything to recommend them other than the fact that they resolve a discrepancy which his beliefs cannot allow to exist.  They may or may not be plausible explanations - you and i have discussed several 'plausible' explanations why homosexuality could be evolutionarily selected for - but that doesn't make them true.  i could approach this issue the same way - come up with some ad hoc reasoning to banish a problem with a theory which i feel must be true - but i'm not going to do that.  i suspect that there is an explanation for this problem, but i dont know what it is.

i think i would respect that kind of stance from a christian on the subject of Matthew vs Luke.  To say 'There are possible explanations for this, but no really compelling ones.  i believe that there is a solution to this problem but i dont know precisely what it is' is better in my book than throwing out question-begging solutions to ward off any challenge to ones belief system.
 
If someone says (pointing out the obvious) that given evolution, the whole point that has been rammed down our throats for 150 years is that it is about surviving with the point of reproducing, then homosexuality, which castrates reproduction (sorry for the imagery), and your retort is "Oh, well, but we observe homosexuality in the animal kingdom" you haven't offered a viable response.

No, i've just stated a fact.  It is a fact which any theory explaining why the world is the way it is must seek to explain.

This I think you will counter by saying that evolutionary theory can adapt to fit new observations.

Nah, like i say, i'm past that.

In my experience, it endlessly adapt, and that makes me deeply skeptical.

Funnily enough, i've been having similar thoughts about Christianity.  For instance, according to EB, both agreement ("we would have to except the eyewitness testimony of...His ressurection on the mere fact that the Gospels provide consistent accounts from 4 different sources" - March 07, 2008, 05:30:48 PM) AND disagreement ("Obviously they say different things. If [the gospels] were...identical any lawyer...would point out such an act as that of collusion or conspiracy" - March 13, 2008, 04:42:49 PM) in the gospels is evidence of the bible's veracity.  Odd that.  What i bet is that EB's certainty on the subject has made him treat any evidence as favourable to his chosen belief system.

Sorry for the long windedness here, but I don't think I'll be back for a day or two and I wanted to get this all out.

No problem.    Heheh

Dannyboy, to me the pertinent question is:  "Just what would convince that evolutionary theory wasn't correct?"

A very interesting question.  i will give it some thought.  i hope that you will reciprocate.

Every example of homosexuality and altruism you find will, in my view, be one more example of how evolution was falsified.  So keep'm coming.  :)

Well, i'm not going to shy away from things which i don't immediately have an answer for.  i think you would be premature, and possibly ideologically influenced, if you claimed that the things you mention conclusively 'falsify' evolution.

So whether fast or slow, evolutionary theory lives.  Nothing can defeat it... because it is 100% malleable.

An answer i have heard to the question you propose is the existence of a hominid fossil in pre-cambrian strata.  i know that you're just itching for me to give that as my answer so you can jump in with your assertion that strata are identified, at least partly, by what fossils are found within them.  Hoho, circular reasoning, evolution falsified again.  Unfortunately it's not quite as simple as that - there are various different ways that the age of strata is determined, and i have not heard of sufficiently widely-spaced estimates being produced by those different methods to cause a problem of the kind that you are positing.  If you have (that is, if you can give me a documented example of the order of strata identified as pre-cambrian being subsequently re-labelled as recent on the basis of fossils discovered within it), then please share.

That is not my answer, incidentally.  i'll have to think about it.

I owe you a PM don't I?

Definitely.  And some dancing, i believe.

i agree, but the examples you mention are more explicable - i.e. there is a clear benefit for an animal to preserve the life and health of another member of its family group or community.  Expending energy to preserve the life of a member of a different species is harder to explain.

ANd thus why the usual evolutionist's answer that "we are self-less in order to be more selfish' when it comes to moral acts by answer becomes even more suspect.

'Moral acts motivated by immorality' is highly subjective.  And while it may be difficult to understand why animals behave in certain ways (let alone humans), the fact that something does not immediately seem to fit with a certain theory does not necessarily mean that it does not fit.

No it's quite easy to know why humans behave. Our hearts are bent on evil.

But this simply further example of your contradictory attitude DB. You find an apparent contradiction in the Bible you immediately pounce on it and call explanations ad hoc. But when it comes to evolution your attitude takes a complete 180. Seems your rather snide remark about me below may reflect you more.

Yeah, that's really not ad hoc at all - if animals are there to glorify god and help one another to fulfil that role the i'm puzzled why they spend so much of their time killing and eating each other.

Besides the fact that when Man fell in the Garden all off creation was dragged down with us?

i don't pretend to have all the answers.  That is where you and i differ most obviously

Obviously. As I believe the most important answers to life can be easily found in the Bible. Rather than only thinking I have the answers and often being wrong, as in the atheism's case.

 Wow, you're right - that's a stupid idea.  i will return at once to the belief that humans are made in the image of god, totally different from animals, just coincidentally built on the same basic body plan as mammals with virtually identical organs and DNA to primates and even many of the same basic behaviours and instincts.  No, hang on - that's even stupider...

Oh I don't know DB. I think believing that man has intrinsic value as a cornerstone for a secularist belief like...oh let's say...Humanism in one thread and in the very next thread advocate that cosmicly we're little different than bacteria or animals with evolution, as compared to the fact that the same basic plan for all creatures means the same Planner for all of creation, is far far dumber. 

That's a very reasonable point.  All we can say for sure is that the dolphin expended energy in order to (apparently) rescue two fellow mammals.  Maybe it wasn't a rescue - maybe he/she just went over to have a look what was going on and then left the same way, followed by the whales.  The appearence is of an altruistic action though, right?

Which is basicly the point. In the case of animals all you can observe is past acts. You can say nothing to intent which is even more important when determining morality. Helping an old lady cross the street isn't as virtuous when the reason for doing it was because one intends to rob her on the other side. Sadly for evolutionists, trying to determine intent with an animal is a little more difficult than a simple language barrier. Much to Dr. Dolittle's chagrin.

However, guess what - i'm not going to abandon my belief that evolutionary theory is the correct way to understand the diversity of life just because i've come up with something i cant explain.

And there's the prize right there. While evolution is contiually being driven as a fact proven by science, evolution isn't science at all. It's simply another belief. One atheists hold quite dogmaticly.

i could approach this issue the same way - come up with some ad hoc reasoning to banish a problem with a theory which i feel must be true - but i'm not going to do that.  i suspect that there is an explanation for this problem, but i dont know what it is.

Seems that as you've just admitted there are a number of different ways to approach the homosexual problem with evolution, you are indeed quite willing to go into so called 'ad hoc' reasoning. It's just uncomfortable for you when it's dealing with your belief system.

i think i would respect that kind of stance from a christian on the subject of Matthew vs Luke.  To say 'There are possible explanations for this, but no really compelling ones.  i believe that there is a solution to this problem but i dont know precisely what it is' is better in my book than throwing out question-begging solutions to ward off any challenge to ones belief system.

Hehehe. That there is an explanation that resolves all the difficulties is quite compelling, as you would no doubt agree if one could be found to solve evolution's problems. Emphasis on 'if'. But if you respect intellectual cowardice that much...

Funnily enough, i've been having similar thoughts about Christianity.  For instance, according to EB, both agreement ("we would have to except the eyewitness testimony of...His ressurection on the mere fact that the Gospels provide consistent accounts from 4 different sources" - March 07, 2008, 05:30:48 PM) AND disagreement ("Obviously they say different things. If [the gospels] were...identical any lawyer...would point out such an act as that of collusion or conspiracy" - March 13, 2008, 04:42:49 PM) in the gospels is evidence of the bible's veracity.  Odd that.  What i bet is that EB's certainty on the subject has made him treat any evidence as favourable to his chosen belief system.

Truly sad DB. If I were to tell one person I enjoyed going to the movies with Stacy last night, what could be infered from this? That I went to the movie with Stacy and enjoyed the movie. But if a moment later I told another person I didn't like the movie I saw with Mark last night.

Your sad sad interpretation says I've contradicted myself, but if it's under the context that I went to the movie with Stacy and Luke at the same time and enjoyed the time we had, while not particularly liking the movie we saw there is no contradiction. Thus saying 'different' things is a far far cry from 'disagreement'.

But don't worry DB. Every critic who gives long winded arguements to the Bible's contradictions and errors make this mistake. They take a simplistic approach of cutting and pasting verses that seem to contradict and ignore the context given.

EB,

"i agree, but the examples you mention are more explicable - i.e. there is a clear benefit for an animal to preserve the life and health of another member of its family group or community.  Expending energy to preserve the life of a member of a different species is harder to explain."

ANd thus why the usual evolutionist's answer that "we are self-less in order to be more selfish' when it comes to moral acts by answer becomes even more suspect.

Well, a lot of people think i am selfless for the work i do, but actually i get a lot of job satisfaction from helping people, and dont consider myself to be in any way more moral or worthy than the rest of the population.  In many ways i would say my actions are selfish - not only do i get paid but i get to feel like i'm doing something worthwhile.  i guess without knowing exactly how intelligent dolphins are it's hard to know their motivation.

No it's quite easy to know why humans behave. Our hearts are bent on evil.

   Yeah, that's very simplistic.  You have a wide range of human behaviours to explain, and "We're all evil" doesn't really cut it.  As a trivial example, how would you fit Cop's small act of kindness in helping you to set up a blog into the explanatory framework of Humans=baaaaaad?

But this simply further example of your contradictory attitude DB. You find an apparent contradiction in the Bible you immediately pounce on it and call explanations ad hoc. But when it comes to evolution your attitude takes a complete 180. Seems your rather snide remark about me below may reflect you more.

Have i offered any explanations?  i don't recall doing so.  Am i denying that this issue is a difficult one for evolutionary theory?  Did i, in fact, bring it up in the first place?  Perhaps i am secure enough to tolerate problematic aspects of my belief-system, rather than smugly producing elaborate but wholly unsupported solutions to the tiniest problem.

Also, the bible and evolution are rather different types of narrative.  One pretends to be 100% authoritative and divinely inspired, which in my book makes it fair game for criticism when inconsistencies and contradictions appear.  Evolutionary theory is a human attempt to explain the diversity of life on this planet, and as such it is bound to have flaws and problems.  i dont sweep such problems under the carpet when they appear, but i understand why you do.

"Yeah, that's really not ad hoc at all - if animals are there to glorify god and help one another to fulfil that role the i'm puzzled why they spend so much of their time killing and eating each other."

Besides the fact that when Man fell in the Garden all off creation was dragged down with us?

Ah, i see.  So based on the (overwhelmingly obviously fictional) Garden of Eden story, you conclude that all animal life is 'bent on evil' as well as humans?  Fine, but now i am puzzled again by how you explain the dolphin's apparently altruistic act.  No no, don't tell me - it's because animals were created to help each other and glorify god isn't it?  We could go round this loop of self-deception a couple more times if you like.  Maybe after a few more laps you'll realise that these two explanations don't quite fit together.

I think believing that man has intrinsic value as a cornerstone for a secularist belief like...oh let's say...Humanism in one thread and in the very next thread advocate that cosmicly we're little different than bacteria or animals with evolution, as compared to the fact that the same basic plan for all creatures means the same Planner for all of creation, is far far dumber. 

The fact that physically we're just another animal is impossible to deny.  Mentally we differ, but other animals approach our level of sophistication (chimps, for example, have been shown to have a sense of self).  Human ability to comprehend the world around us makes us special in my eyes, but the idea that we are entirely separate from animals is just ego-tripping, i'm afraid - an unaccountably enduring version of the 'sun and stars revolve around the earth' theory.

"However, guess what - i'm not going to abandon my belief that evolutionary theory is the correct way to understand the diversity of life just because i've come up with something i cant explain."

And there's the prize right there. While evolution is contiually being driven as a fact proven by science, evolution isn't science at all. It's simply another belief. One atheists hold quite dogmaticly.

*sigh*  The word 'belief' can be appropriately applied to the acceptance of a wide variety of concepts, however desperately you fixate on it as evidence of my non-scientific bent.  i believe the sun will rise tomorrow, with good reason.  i believe a multitude of things (with varying justification), but not all beliefs are equally valid.  Evolution is an evidence-based theory, rather than a faith-based one.  i had a feeling that you might jump like a hungry dog for that one.

As for the dogma part, well, one of us has shown himself to be open to the possibility that there may be flaws in his view of the world, and one of us has consistently papered over any cracks in his belief-system with the flimsiest material available.  i'll leave others to decide who is the dogmatic one.

That there is an explanation that resolves all the difficulties is quite compelling, as you would no doubt agree if one could be found to solve evolution's problems. Emphasis on 'if'. But if you respect intellectual cowardice that much...

i hope that i would evaluate a proposed solution fairly.  There would need to be some reason to accept it other than that it resolved the problem (something you seem unable to comprehend).

Your sad sad interpretation says I've contradicted myself, but if it's under the context that I went to the movie with Stacy and Luke at the same time and enjoyed the time we had, while not particularly liking the movie we saw there is no contradiction. Thus saying 'different' things is a far far cry from 'disagreement'.

This would be semi-reasonable if you didn't also want to claim that the gospels are inspired by god.  If they can be treated as falible human accounts then i would be much more ready to understand differences in their reporting of events, but then we might have to consider the possibility that some of the things they say (especially Paul of Tarsus - that bigoted misogynist freak) are just their opinion.  Try not to faint.

If the gospels are human accounts then i have no problem with them.  The differing geneologies can be understood as the writers trying in their own ways to establish the authenticity of their messiah by crowbarring him into old testament prophesies.  If you want to insist that God wrote (or at least editted) them then i am going to be much more resistant to the idea that the accounts differ because 'witnesses mention different details'.

But don't worry DB. Every critic who gives long winded arguements to the Bible's contradictions and errors make this mistake. They take a simplistic approach of cutting and pasting verses that seem to contradict and ignore the context given.

Thank you for your patronising reassurance.  i feel much better now.

""Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to evolution aren't humans also animals?""
"Sad  Wow, you're right - that's a stupid idea."

I don't understand the jab here.  I'm not disputing the right of evolutionists to classify humans as animals.  I am disputing the significance of animals showing altruism when in fact according to evolution we are already accustomed to animals showing altruism.  The human animal, for example.

"just coincidentally built on the same basic body plan as mammals with virtually identical organs and DNA to primates and even many of the same basic behaviours and instincts."

That's a pretty hollow argument, in my view.  In the first place, I question the validity of the assumption that if life is created by God it must be radically diverse.  But I see you shifted the argument from 'animals' to 'mammals.'  That seems pretty selective argumentation, to me.  Sure, there are similarities to the primates, but other mammals, say... the mouse... don't have such apparent 'coincidences.'  But if we open the field back up to all life forms, the argument fails horribly as the human body plan is in fact radically diverse when compared to whales, squids, ants, birds, lizards, etc.  That in all of this diversity there might be a subset that has similar body plans and even similar behaviors is hardly significant.

"The appearence is of an altruistic action though, right?"

I have a real problem with that.  It is universally agreed that organisms exhibit exquisite design at every level- genetic and morphological, etc.  Even Richard Dawkins admits this.  In the face of this he labels this only apparent design.   The prima facie appearance of design in biological organisms is off the charts compared to the prima facie evidence for altruistic action.  I'm not going to give you an 'appearance of an altruistic action' as being a compelling reason for inferring that genuine altruism is going on unless you give me that the appearance of design- which is much more robust- is a compelling reason for inferring that one is face to face with genuine design.

"i would say that the incident (taken at face value) is a puzzle whatever one's ideological standpoint"

You might be surprised.  Check out Genesis 9:2

"Forgive me for framing a question in my own terms of reference."

:)  Ok, but at some point you know you have to translate it into independent terms.  My bad for rushing you into it.  :)

However if it is maintained that homosexuality and altruism is logically inconsistent with the theory then the empirical observation that they exist actually serves to undermine the theory, not strengthen it.

"However, guess what - i'm not going to abandon my belief that evolutionary theory is the correct way to understand the diversity of life just because i've come up with something i cant explain.  i could hypothesise and guess, but i'm not going to do that - i think that would be more intellectually dishonest than just labelling it a potential problem and moving on.  One of the very reasons i posted this item was that it puzzled me."

I don't understand this paragraph.  It sounds initially like merely encountering something you can't explain isn't enough to drive you off your belief.  Ok, fair enough.  Then you say you could hypothesize and guess, but you won't do it... because that is more dishonest ... hypothesizing and guessing is more dishonest?  Really?

"There are different ways of handling it when a problem or issue is raised with a theory or idea that you firmly believe in.  For example, in my current debate with End Bringer, the subject of the differing geneologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke has come up."

I don't really see what the issue is here.  If you're willing to take difficulties like altruism and homosexuality in stride why can't EB- or myself- do the same thing?  Why can't we say, "Ok, these geneaologies are problematic, but before we leap to the conclusion that the Scriptures contradict, why don't we see if there are ways the problem can be resolved?"  Why is it more reasonable to assume that they really are contradictions? 

Besides that, isn't it the mark of the scientific method that when one is confronted with a challenging set of data to reconcile that the scientist doesn't just throw up his hands and declare "Oh well!"

Can you explain to me how when the scientist sets about resolving a complicated issue it is laudable but if a theist wishes to do the same he is construed as ideologically entrenched?

"i think i would respect that kind of stance from a christian on the subject of Matthew vs Luke.  To say 'There are possible explanations for this, but no really compelling ones.  i believe that there is a solution to this problem but i dont know precisely what it is' is better in my book than throwing out question-begging solutions to ward off any challenge to ones belief system."

Heh, well, that is basically my position on those geneologies except that I don't agree that they aren't compelling.  The problem is that several explanations are quite plausible but there is no way to really decide between them based on current information.  I don't know the context of your debate, but I have seen it the other way just as often- question-begging that the Scriptures are contradictory and chock filled with error... How could an old book be accurate?  I mean, really.  It's old. 

"No, i've just stated a fact.  It is a fact which any theory explaining why the world is the way it is must seek to explain."

Ok.  Haven't I given you my explanation?  You realize of course that you have to evaluate it from my frame of reference, though? 

""This I think you will counter by saying that evolutionary theory can adapt to fit new observations.""
"Nah, like i say, i'm past that."

Copernicus will, then. :)

In my experience, it endlessly adapt, and that makes me deeply skeptical.

"Funnily enough, i've been having similar thoughts about Christianity."

Good.  Keep thinking about it.  I think you'll see that there are limits to how far Christianity can be stretched because it has a fixed set of documents.  You can't make the Bible say that God hates Microsoft, for example, because Microsoft is not in the documents.  Compare and contrast with secular atheism which has no overarching standard.  Any given atheist can believe any given thing and still call themselves an atheist...

"A very interesting question.  i will give it some thought.  i hope that you will reciprocate."

Of course.  It is something I tackled early on in my trek to theism.

"i think you would be premature, and possibly ideologically influenced, if you claimed that the things you mention conclusively 'falsify' evolution."

I will be content with my previous phrasing:  "However if it is maintained that homosexuality and altruism is logically inconsistent with the theory then the empirical observation that they exist actually serves to undermine the theory, not strengthen it."

But I still insist that if evolutionary theory claims to take the 'high road' as being science rather than that simpleminded religious fundamentalism [add your insult here], the fact is that since Popper it has been generally agreed that a scientific theory will properly be falsifiable.  Perhaps theology is not the same kind of thing that is open to empirical inquiry, but then it doesn't claim to rise to so called scientific standards, either.  Evolutionary theory does.  It claims the higher road so it has got to be prepared to meet the higher standards.  If nothing is ever allowed to count against evolution- in principle- and evolutionary theory merely revises itself every generation or so in the face of challenges, I think it is quite reasonable to wonder if it is up to Popperian standards.

Consider this link which argues that yet another version of evolutionary theory is on the way.  Neo-neo-Darwinism, if you will.  But don't you worry!  Everything we know gets revised every 30 years or so and everything we think we know now will be reinterpreted under the new paradigm but we at least know evolution is true!  True, darn it!  Not like those d--n Creationists who never revise their theory!  (or so the allegation goes)

Oh yea, the link.  :)  I got carried away.  :) 

Here:  http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm

And Here:  http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html

And this one is an older one I found while trying to scare up the first one above: http://dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

But don't you worry!  Evolution is true, by golly!  "That argument is over."  (second link)

So whether fast or slow, evolutionary theory lives.  Nothing can defeat it... because it is 100% malleable.

"If you have (that is, if you can give me a documented example of the order of strata identified as pre-cambrian being subsequently re-labelled as recent on the basis of fossils discovered within it), then please share."

That really wasn't the point I was arguing, although that is certainly interesting.  No, my point is that we don't actually 'have' 4.5 billion years by which to give for evolution to work its wonders.  We only have about 500 million years, and arguably because of the mass extinction that wiped out practically everything, there is actually only 65 million years.

It is a very simple argument:  Is it really plausible to believe that virtually all biological systems on this planet managed to emerge in just 500 million years... or even 65 million years?

Try this simple formula.  A new morphological trait, big or small, can only be selected upon after the gene(s) that generate the trait come into existence, and the primary if not exclusive mechanism for that happening is mutation.  (transposition is just a form of mutation).  Well, surely we have somewhere some good raw empirical data on mutation rates?  Then, we factor in the fact that some 99% of mutations are positively harmful and death dealing.  Surely someone has produced a figure detailing approximately how many mutations (that don't result in something tragic) it would take to get from organism A to organism B.

Do the math... is 65 million years enough?  500 million years?

Here is a discussion on mutation rates:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

The only number I can't find to plug into the equation is the figure estimating how many mutations between organism A and B.  In my mind, working out this equation would be a critical component to evaluating the plausibility of evolutionary theory.  I can't say that I've ever seen a discussion of it.  But there- a 'reciprocation' if you will.

X=observed mutation rate
Y=Number of mutations estimated existing between org. A and org. B.
Z=percentage of mutations that are benefical.

Y/(X*Z)=?

I believe I've got that equation right.  If I have, this would give us a reasonable estimate about how long it would take to get from A to B, where A is either an ancestor known to have existed right after the Cambrian or after the mass extinction and B is a modern organism believed to be the progeny of A.

This is again a lot of rambling, but I'm trying to make the point that evolutionists like to slide back and forth between numbers about how long evolution had to work with... citing 4.5 billion years to really nail it down as credible and citing the Cambrian explosion- 500 mya, in the next breath.  Well, that is a much different story in my book.

I'm a bit confused about your re-labeling comments, but so far as I understand them I do recall an example in the news in the last year or so.  If I can remember what it is, I'll pop it in here.

SJ,

I don't understand the jab here.  I'm not disputing the right of evolutionists to classify humans as animals.

My mistake - i thought you were jabbing at me.

I am disputing the significance of animals showing altruism when in fact according to evolution we are already accustomed to animals showing altruism.  The human animal, for example.

Understood.  The reason i am interested in it is because human altruism can be explained by our ability to reason and empathise with people we are not related to.  Saying 'we are just another animal' is not to say that we are not also different from animals in significant ways.  However, as the Doctor has suggested, this ability to reason may also be a characteristic of dolphins, which would help me to understand this and other (apparent) acts of extra-species altruism.

In the first place, I question the validity of the assumption that if life is created by God it must be radically diverse.

i wouldn't say 'must'.  Obviously god could create things exactly how he wanted, but the basic tetrapod body plan is repeated so many times in the animal kingdom that it would seem more indicative of common descent than of individual creation.

Sure, there are similarities to the primates, but other mammals, say... the mouse... don't have such apparent 'coincidences.'

 i thought for a moment that you were going to say "to the other primates".  Anyway, i disagree.  We do have the same basic body plan as a mouse.  i anticipate an argument along the lines of god obviously choosing the most sensible/economical design plan, but the amount of similarities is greater than can be easily explained that way.  Did you know, for instance, that humans and mice (along with most of the rest of the mammal population) have seven cervical vertebrae?  Given the rather different stresses and range of movements that our necks are used for, how can we explain this 'coincidence'?  See this link also for genetic similarities between humans and mice:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/05/MN153329.DTL&type=science

But if we open the field back up to all life forms, the argument fails horribly as the human body plan is in fact radically diverse when compared to whales, squids, ants, birds, lizards, etc.  That in all of this diversity there might be a subset that has similar body plans and even similar behaviors is hardly significant.

Well, off your list there i would point out that whales, birds and lizards do share the same body plan as us.  Vestigal pelvises and femurs, and even in some cases entire hind limbs complete with digits have been documented in whales and snakes.  Ok ok, you're going to object to the word 'vestigal' there, but honestly, if we find a whale with hind legs what is your explanation?  Whale embryos frequently have hind limb buds.

I'm not going to give you an 'appearance of an altruistic action' as being a compelling reason for inferring that genuine altruism is going on unless you give me that the appearance of design- which is much more robust- is a compelling reason for inferring that one is face to face with genuine design.

   Heheh.  Well, you dont have to agree with me.  i accept that the appearence of altruism does not necessarily mean that altruism has taken place.  Ditto 'design'.  Sorry to disappoint.

"i would say that the incident (taken at face value) is a puzzle whatever one's ideological standpoint"

You might be surprised.  Check out Genesis 9:2

Your interpretation would be that the dolphin helped the whale out of fear of humans?

It sounds initially like merely encountering something you can't explain isn't enough to drive you off your belief.  Ok, fair enough.  Then you say you could hypothesize and guess, but you won't do it... because that is more dishonest ... hypothesizing and guessing is more dishonest?  Really?

Look, if there is a problem, or even a potential problem with something i believe then obviously i want to find the answer.  But a solution should have something to recommend it other than that it solves a problem, if you see what i mean.  Going back to the geneology problem in the NT - if it wasn't for the apparent disagreement between Luke and Matthew (if, let's say, there was only one geneology listed) then no one would be suggesting that Heli might have been really Mary's father, or whatever.  The text would be taken at face value - a geneology of Jesus through Joseph.  The only compelling reason for accepting any of those things as a premise is that the disagreement is thus resolved, which is why people like myself (who expect there to be disagreements) are unconvinced by them.

In the same way, i could come up with hypotheses to explain the problem of apparent altruism in animals for evolutionary theory.  As i said, in the past i have done so for homosexuality.  But, if the only reason to believe something is that it patches a thin part of your belief system, then i think that it is intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.  So, for that reason, i am not going to spend my time hypothesising possible explanations for altruism in animals.  i don't know, is the answer, but there is enough other evidence making me believe that evolution is the correct explanation for life as we see it today, that i am not concerned by this current inability to explain something.

If you're willing to take difficulties like altruism and homosexuality in stride why can't EB- or myself- do the same thing?

You can.

Why can't we say, "Ok, these geneaologies are problematic, but before we leap to the conclusion that the Scriptures contradict, why don't we see if there are ways the problem can be resolved?"  Why is it more reasonable to assume that they really are contradictions?

i'm not asking you to assume they are contradictions, but as i said above, unless there is an explanation for them which is independently compelling then you are guilty of ad hoc argumentation if you pretend that the issue is resolved.  Leave a question mark over it, by all means.  i will not take issue with it.

Besides that, isn't it the mark of the scientific method that when one is confronted with a challenging set of data to reconcile that the scientist doesn't just throw up his hands and declare "Oh well!"

But i'm not a scientist.  

Can you explain to me how when the scientist sets about resolving a complicated issue it is laudable but if a theist wishes to do the same he is construed as ideologically entrenched?

See above.  If (for example) a gene is found which demonstrably causes animals who carry it to behave altruistically then it's existence would be independently verifiable.  Yeah, i know that's a dumb example, but you get my drift.

The problem is that several explanations are quite plausible but there is no way to really decide between them based on current information.

Then they have no more validity than my 'plausible' explanations for homosexuality in animals, which i seem to remember you poo-pooing heartily.

I think you'll see that there are limits to how far Christianity can be stretched because it has a fixed set of documents.  You can't make the Bible say that God hates Microsoft, for example, because Microsoft is not in the documents.

No, but what you can do (as EB has just done) is explain any human or animal behaviour by appealing to the goodness of god's creation in the case of positive behaviour or the results of the Fall in the case of negative behaviour.  That's pretty stretchy.

Compare and contrast with secular atheism which has no overarching standard.  Any given atheist can believe any given thing and still call themselves an atheist...

But i'm not making any claims that atheists are a unified group.

If nothing is ever allowed to count against evolution- in principle- and evolutionary theory merely revises itself every generation or so in the face of challenges, I think it is quite reasonable to wonder if it is up to Popperian standards.

i think that the answer to that (and your previous challenge to me) is that evolution would be difficult to falsify in the same way that the theory of gravity would be difficult to falsify.  Because there is so much empirical evidence in favour of it, a one-off example of, for example, a hominid fossil in pre-cambrian rock would probably be rightly treated as an anomally.  What would be required would for there to be a pattern of such discoveries.

The other thing would be if one of the sciences which appear to support evolution was dramatically revised.  If, for instance, geologists massively lowered their estimates of the age of the earth (down to a few thousand years say), that would destroy evolutionary theory.

Is it really plausible to believe that virtually all biological systems on this planet managed to emerge in just 500 million years... or even 65 million years?

Try scaling up the amount of 'microevolution' required in the last four thousand years to produce the current diversity of life from the animals which would have fitted into an ocean-going wooden boat by 125,000 (for 500million years) or 16,250 (for 65million).  Plausibility is relative.

This is again a lot of rambling...

Yeah, interesting though.  Reminds me of the Drake equation (habitable planets in the universe).

Ciao buddy

 Cool.  So it's the 'extrinsic' [definition: "not forming part of or belonging to a thing"] cruelty at work when an islamic fundamentalist beheads his captive, but since humans know good intrinsically then we can be sure that he will feel really bad about it afterwards?

This goes back to what I said to Cop. about feeling guilty because we are.

The 'extrinsic' evil you presumably ascribe to the Fall, although one of mankinds greatest rebellions against the authority of God apparently occurred prior to that (and was in fact the cause of it).  How do we explain that?  Flawed creations?

A kid is flawed because he rebels against his parent? It that pesky free will issue one has to cone to terms with.

Given the massive burden of evidence in favour of evolution, if we do not understand how a certain characteristic could have evolved there is still plenty of reason to continue thinking that evolution is correct while searching for a solution.  i dont expect you to accept this.

There is no evidence in favor of evolution. There is a massive amount of evidence for natural selection (or microevolution is one wants to get picky) and thus atheists hold that if it can happen on a smaller scale it should on a larger one, but there isn't a shred of evidence that man hasn't always been man and an ape hasn't always been an ape. Just try to say fossil evidence for missing links, I'd love to go into it.

i'm imposing a temporary ban on myself from using the eyes-roll smiley while talking to you, because i'm honestly afraid that i might wear it out.  Firstly, i'm not 'carrying out' evolution - i'm not a scientist.  i'm just a moderately well-informed observer to the process of science.  And it's no more blind faith than it would be to continue believing in gravity after seeing an aeroplane take off for the first time.

Not that well informed apparently. Sadly your analogy does not hold as gravity is a constant, while in evolution's case it's a historical account that's being more and more driven by a lot of wishful thinking.

As i said to Johnny, i think you're fooling yourself.

Pot. Kettle.

All that has been done for the problems we have discussed in the bible is to suggest possible ways out of them.  If there was only one geneology of Jesus listed in the NT then no one would be suggesting that it was reasonable to think Heli might have been really Mary's father, or whatever.  The only compelling reason for accepting any of those things is that the disagreement is thus resolved, which is why you accept them so eagerly.

Yeah, problems getting solved. What was I thinking? Of course your once again missing the point that the focus of the geneologies was more on Christ than on Mary or Joseph.

And I'm afraid your still showing a largely hypocritical attitude on this issue, since in the case of altruism being seen in animals has been around since Darwin, and centuries later it still remains a problem despite scientific advancement. Yet evolutionists will continue to suggest possible ways out of this probelm.

Unless some animals turn out to be more intelligent than human ego wishes them to be.

IQ points won't resolve this issue. Especially as sntjohnny has commented on atheistic explanations of how animals aren't as cruel as humans because they aren't as smart, while turning around and saying the solution to this behavior is to be smarter.

]There are plenty of ways that they are different, but i have no interest in laying them out for you if you dont already know them.

What? Just a minute ago you were all gun-ho with animals being so similar to humans with altruistic acts, and homosexuality, and being closer to our intelligence to show there isn't really any significant difference in order to promote evolution. Now you want to say they're world's apart? 

Oh interesting!  Is this the start of you coming out as an IDer i wonder?  Genesis describing evolution?  Hmm

Interestingly when it comes to natural selection it's pretty much has always been revealed in the Bible as it says animals multiplied in variation in kind. And in a less obvience instance one can observe that if the Bible describes humans like Noah living for hundreds of years while we today can barely make it to 80, it's not too hard to postulate genetic degradation.

And yes, the parable of forbidden fruit - another good example of god frowning on the pursuit of knowledge over blind faith by his creations.  Give me the tree of knowledge any day.

Yes, those Nazi doctors were right to pursue such great amounts of medical knowledge even if thousands had to suffer for it.

And yes, as you say, humans were apparently 'bent on disobedience' before the Fall - i.e. after they were created by god without any corrupting influence having effected them.  How do you explain this?

Evidence that we do indeed have free will. Though some may note in Eve's case the serpent didn't help.

"In physics we're no different than a table"?  Are you sure you're not oversimplifying things a teeny bit?

No more than your next statement:

And yes, the common body plan for mammals, reptiles, marsupials and birds could be evidence for a common designer - a lazy or unimaginative one.

So your position is that since all sculptures use the same basic materials they are suddenly unimaginative, despite the various designs one can make by useing the same clay? Riiiiight.

Like Paul's rabid anti-semitism didn't have anything to do with it.  No you're right - it was all the atheists' fault.

Whatever you say Eve.

None of those things are integral to evolution.  How life started and how it developed afterwards are separate considerations.  For all i know God could have spontaneously created the first single-celled organisms and then got distracted watching CSI while evolution occurred to produce the situation today.  If he looks in on how things are going during a commercial break he's going to be very surprised by what people like you are claiming on his behalf.

If you can't even know that life formed from some primordial ooze to get the process started, how then can you be so sure the entire process even happened? Oh right, evolution MUST have happened.

Abiogenesis is not an article of faith for me.  i have no fixed position on it.

Neither does any other scientist. That's why evolution is so malleable. It can be bent so far that one can even allow God for the process, even though the whole point of it is to say everything was made by chance.

Or more accurately pretending that you have solved any problems in order to minimise the crippling dissonance you might feel if you had to honestly evaluate your own beliefs.  i never yet heard a fundamentalist admit that his or her worldview was anything less than complete and perfect in every detail.  That would be your corner EB.

On the contrary. I don't believe for second the Bible tells us everything. Since it's not a science book I don't believe I'll find in depth scientific data (though what the Bible does speak to on science is acurate) I simply believe what it does speak to is true, and consistent.

Yawn.  The belief that evolution is the correct explanatory framework is not itself problematic, but there may be things about it which are.  Flat-Earth theory has some biblical support of course, which the church relied on heavily when suppressing alternative views.  Likewise the idea of the sun revolving around the earth (after all, how could the sun be stopped in the sky for Joshua and his army if the earth was just a satelite?).

Where? In Job 26:7, where it's written "He stretches out the North over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing."? In Isaiah 40:22 where God sits "above the circle of the earth"? Or how about in Luke 27 where Christ talks about a single event of rapturing believers where one is "in one bed" (night), and another is "grinding in the same place"(day), which demonstrates a remarkable understanding of timezones and the earth revolving. Your Joshua example is very cute, as I'm sure stopping the earth's revolution would have the effect of making the sun appear to stop moving.

But once again, you show that science is the farthest thing from evolution, when the scientific process says if that framework contains problems one must be willing to throw the whole thing out.

One shouldn't accept a solution if the only reason for accepting it is that it resolves a problem with ones belief system.  That is called an ad hoc argument.

Actually an ad hoc is a solution that is not generalizable. Which you clearly don't grasp, when refering to the solutions to the genology 'contradiction' as ad hoc, even though in-laws are quite general, and your misdefinition here.

]No.  If i were debating with someone who wished to look at the gospels as a solely historical account of the life of Jesus then i would be less stringent in examining them.  You tie in your religious baggage to them and make them the word of god (to be fair it's not like you're alone in this), so that you can insist on their perfection but at the same time dismiss any problems with them by saying that witness statements often mention different things.

Hahahaha. It is a historical account DB. It's the historical account that Christ actually was ressurrected that the entirety of Christianity is based on. As Paul said, if it didn't happen then Christians are pathetic, but as the gospels give 4 seperate independent accounts, and we know they are seperate by their differintiating (still a far far cry from disagreeing) testimony, then it has to be true. As the ressurection is true then it legitamizes Christ's claims of being God.

Could the gospels be in error?

Could you be?

Explain yourself more clearly then.  What does 'inspired by god' mean to you?  Are these human accounts or divine ones?  Can they have errors and omissions in them?

Inspiration litterally means 'God-breathed'. Your problem is that when Paul declared all scripture as 'inspired' he largely was refering to the OT, and we can be assured the OT we have is the same he was refering to thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, though this applies to the NT as well, when they were recognized as scripture. When saying scripture is inspired it means to hold the same authority if God were speaking directly to you. That human beings wrote the Bible means nothing as a secratary taking a dictation from her boss may be writing it down, but the message still comes from her boss.

Not so coincidently one can varify that the Bible was indeed inspired by an all-knowing God, as an all-knowing God would be consistent with the way the universe actually works. Thus the consistency of Scripture about the Earth being round and floating in space above being true during a period of 'the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it' is evidence of it's validity. As well as the the consistent theme that created things are things, wholely different from the Creator, that can be found in the Bible in contrast with the pagan religions worshipping the sun as Ra, or Apollo, or Hinduism and such.

You might be interested in this article in light of my comments about human evolution:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v15/n4/abs/ng0497-363.html

Abstract:

The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution.

Quote:

The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years.

HA!  CLEARLY incompatible to the KNOWN age!  Indeed!

SJ,

I see no reason to believe that altruism ought be construed as an inherent property of reason.... Given your statement here, I would expect that empathy is an emergent characteristic of higher reason, but I don't see that generally observed.  Ok, maybe I don't want to completely take the idea out at the knees.  I do not agree that human altruism really is explained satisfactorily by our ability to reason.

Fair enough.  However, in general can we agree that animals do not do things for other animals (to whom they are not related) unless there is some direct benefit in it for them?  Obviously some symbiotic relationships would merit close attention.  The pattern of the natural world is not (as has been suggested on this thread) of animals helping each other to glorify god, but rather of animals selfishly competing and not assisting each other unless they derive some short-term needs or long-term genetic benefit thereby.

Humans appear to be somewhat different, since although our behaviour is very often selfish, we do sometimes put ourselves at considerable disadvantage for unrelated strangers to no tangible benefit to ourselves except that we feel it is the right thing to do.  Our moral codes are clearly very helpful in regulating our society, maybe other intelligent species might have developed analogous moral imperatives for the same reason.

A common creator can't employ a common design?  You're crazy, man.  

   Creazy man - he creazy!

Sure a common creator could have employed common design, but i am confused about why it would be good design to (for instance) give humans an appendix which is unnecessary [as evidenced by the absence of health problems in people who lack one], prone to infection and rupture [which is invariably fatal without modern surgery] and is similar in position and appearance to an organ which does serve a digestive purpose in some animals which (by the evolutionary paradigm) are closely related to us.  It just seems like a waste of effort.

Whale embryos with a stage where they have what appears to be 'hind limbs' is an argument I've always held in disdain.  I assume from the fact that we don't find whales with hind legs that these 'hind limb buds' become something else.

Well you ascribe some weight to the 'appearence of design' later on, so forgive me if i harp on things bearing the 'appearence of evolution'.  As i say, appearences can be just that, but they warrant further attention at least.  If you want to be rigorous in examining this suggestion you should really look at what other animals do NOT develop anything resembling limb buds during their embryonic development.  i cannot, for instance, find any reference to sharks doing so, which would fit rather well into the evolutionary theory of whales and sharks separate ancestries.

Can i add snake pelvises and the occasional unlucky child who is born with a tail to your considerations?  You are also rather quiet on the mouse vertebrae issue.

I certainly agree that the appearance of design doesn't ensure that it really is designed, but at least it should be agreed that given the appearance of altruism, you are justified in taking that as prima facie what is going on, with the burden on me to provide some alternate explanation or objection?  Similarly, I am justified in taking apparent design prima facie as genuine design.  Except my inference is much stronger and more weighty.  :)

As it happens i am quite happy to let that comment stand - the appearence of altruism is debatable without knowing an animal's state of mind.  Come to that, the appearence of altruism is legitimately debatable in a human being, whose ability to communicate does not give us a much greater chance of truly knowing his or her mind and true motivations.  The appearence of design is something which for thousands of years convinced the greatest minds in the world of the existence of god, until we found a more complete explanation for it almost 150yrs ago.

So although i agree that the appearence of design is more weighty, i disagree that it is more than just an appearence.

""You might be surprised.  Check out Genesis 9:2""
"Your interpretation would be that the dolphin helped the whale out of fear of humans?"

My point would be that a fear of humans was something new.  Prior to this point the creatures were not afraid of humans, apparently.  What might that mean?

i don't know - it's made up!  It means whatever the person who wrote it wanted it to mean.  This may seem like me being difficult, but honestly this is a bit like me asking you what the break-up of Pangaea in the Mesozoic era means.  Answer - to you, nothing.  Right?

The appearence of me being difficult is not necessarily a sign that i am being difficult.  

Oh, come on, Danny!  It isn't a stretch by any measure to notice that a person will have two different family trees to work with.  You show me a person whose mother's and father's family tree is identical I'll show you a case study in imbecility.    Ad hoc my rosy red...

You're dodging the issue.  i have no problem with there being two different family trees, what i have a problem with is them contradicting each other.  Both are set up as an account of how Jesus is descended from ancient lineage (Abraham in Matthew, and all the way back to Adam in Luke) via Joseph.  If Matthew actually said "And Jacob begat Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" then there would be no problem.

Your rosy red something-or-other does not impress me.  

"But i'm not a scientist."

Nice.  I'm going to remember that move.  

Well, i'm not.  i'm not involved in the science of evolutionary theory or the study of animal behaviour, so it's not really in my power to independently demonstrate a solution to this problem.

"No, but what you can do (as EB has just done) is explain any human or animal behaviour by appealing to the goodness of god's creation in the case of positive behaviour or the results of the Fall in the case of negative behaviour.  That's pretty stretchy."

And yet it is the paradigm... the frame of reference, if you will.  He isn't acting out of line to point out one of the guiding parameters of the explanatory system.  It isn't like he randomly and ad hoc is citing the fall of man.  It's right in there in the founding documents of the system.

Sure, but you understand that in my paradigm the whole thing is ad hoc?  Having come up with the concept of god in order to explain the world around them, primitive people were celebrating their new understanding of life, the universe and everything when someone like me said 'hang on, if this god character is so good at making stuff for us then why is it so cold in winter?', and everyone had to go back to the drawing board to come up with excuses for the faults in god's creation.  Thus the Fall was conceived.

i dont dispute your right to explain things in your own terms of reference (after all, look what i just did), but what annoys me is the glibness and superficiality of it.  Like animals helping each other is perfectly in tune with creationist theory AND so is them tearing each other apart all day.  Why?  The Fall.  A handy apologetics tool for any puzzling facet of life with no further explanations required - don't understand something, then it must be the Fall.  Problem solved.

Empirical evidence for what we would call microevolution, which no one has ever disputed.

Prior to Lammark, weren't species thought to be fixed 'eternal' kinds?  And anyway,... no, come to think of it, i'm not going to rise to your bait on this occasion.  

I do hope that we theists are allowed to play the anomaly card if we're up against a problem here or there.  :)

'Anomalies' in a divinely inspired narrative would be rather more troubling than anomalies in a human theory.  Still, why not - anomalise away.

I think it is telling, though, that the tenability of a theory of biology hinges on the findings of geologists.

Why is that telling?  A necessary condition for evolution to have occured is lots and lots of time.  More time than is allowed by a biblical timescale.  So evidence in favour of a biblical timescale, which would be most likely to come from geology, could falsify evolution.  It's not the only thing that could do so, but it's the first one i thought of.  Many people would say that YEC has already been falsified in this manner.

Darwinism holds that there is a common ancestor behind all of the creatures, while the Genesis account clearly indicates that there are created 'kinds.'  I don't need to explain how we got from the early primate ancestor to homo sapien, you do.

Clearly.

Four thousand years is ample enough time to account for the observed diversity of humans, however.  In fact, it has been concluded now that they've done the human genome project that humans across the globe, for all their differences, are 99% similar.

That is not, in itself, very interesting to me.  What would be more interesting is a comparison of the genetic variation within populations of other animals (non-domesticated of course).

And the genetic similarity between chimps and humans is restated to 95%.

You see this as some sort of barb against common descent, i just see science happening.  New things taken into consideration, new research done, old conclusions attacked or defended.  If i read the article right then every other estimate of genetic similarity will need to be revised too, so this doesn't imply that scientists are now saying that chimps are more distant from us than other animals, it's just that the numbers are slightly different.

Not only would a special creation model hold that there are numerous different 'kinds' created, each kind would be genetically pristine.  Evolution, on the other hand, would contend that there really is no such thing.

Agreed.

The difference in the views would be like the YECcer starting with the Windows operating system and noting degradations of the code over time and the evolutionist positing that the code first materialized one bit at a time over 4.5 billion years (ha!  500 million!) at a time, and then in defiance of the same mechanism which allegedly gave it rise, measuring the rate of degradation after that.

  Well i'm sure if we take the analogy of a designed system then your point of view will come out on top.

Anyway, the YEC account would be that the genome is 'winding down' or becoming increasingly corrupt.  This could conceivably have begun at the fall... in my mind it began after the flood with solar (radiation has mutative effects) energy operating in a new way on the planet.

i remember, the clouds.    Terribly unconvincing to me, but i suppose we should expect that.

Are you entertained, DB?  :)

Partially.  No ballet yet though.

"Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans."

HA!  CLEARLY incompatible to the KNOWN age!  Indeed!

Unfortunately i cannot read the full text of this article without paying a subscription fee to a journal which i do not wish to subscribe to.  Or perhaps fortunately, because in my current state i doubt i would be able to make much sense of it anyway.

So the bottleneck for mitochondrial DNA in humans sampled by this study was less old than they anticipated?  That is interesting - in some ways i'm not seeing the problem because the 'mitochondrial eve' is not (as a creationist website i found that also referenced this study suggests) likely to be the first human, but rather just the common ancestor of all modern humans - not quite the same thing.  However, i suppose the point is that six and a half thousand years is quite a lot lower than the presumed age of such a common ancestor, as estimated by the fossil evidence of the timescale of human expansion from Africa.

Like it or not there is a lot of data on the 'age' of homo sapiens, and if this new research contradicts the rest of it then that needs to be accounted for.  i don't know nearly enough about molecular biology to comment.

Cya

Kudos for managing to use the word 'laughable' or some synonym at least six times in that one post.  i'm glad that you are entertaining yourself.

And as I said in our last discussion, it's not so much that newborn's are deserving of death, so much as no one is entitled to live.

You are free to believe that, just as i am free to believe it is morbid incoherent trash.  Let's move on.

I believe the term your looking for is 'nation' when you say 'large group'. It's one of the flaws in your reasoning as your past analogies have overlooked this fact.

That seems to be an irrelevant correction.  A nation is a kind of large group.

Your reasoning also fails here, because the Bible clearly describes God making His presence known to the entire nation, by listing the numerous acts He did for them when they complained and doubted. Providing mana on a daily basis for 40 years, the simple fact that this was after the most powerful nation on Earth was humbled by God to set them free in the first place, etc. etc.

i did say 'mostly'.  Yes, i know god is supposed to have directly shown himself to them in various ways, but often he just 'spake' to the head honcho.  Again, this is not really relevant because what i was saying was that Adam and Eve had a closer relationship with him than your average Israelite.

And one can clearly see that the punishment handed down to Adam and Eve was on a much higher level than those given to the Israelites... God not only punished them, but also their future descendants and the rest of creation was effected by their transgression. Seems a much higher level of punishment for a much higher level of accountability to me.

i wasn't discussing the punishment aspect.  Although since you bring it up, the idea of punishing a person's descendants for their crimes is morally adhorent to most civilised people today.  i wonder why that is.

"...the Fall (much like the death of Jesus) appears to have changed nothing.  Humans were, it seems, designed to be rebellious and to stray from the path of righteousness (or whatever), and it is natural to conclude therefore that we behave the way we do because god wanted us to."

I'm sorry. I just can't see how "You can eat everything except this." translates to "I want you to eat this."

You have missed the point.  i'll say it again - the most significant rebellion against god happened before the Fall (and was the cause of it, if you believe that stuff).  Conclude from this, a) The Fall is therefore a poor explanation of any current human behaviour, and - more importantly - b) uncorrupted, fresh-from-the-production-line humans with no outside influences (the serpent is a distraction, since it was also part of god's 'perfect' creation) rebelled against god's clear and unequivocal commandment.  Incorporate your parenting analogy - god is obviously a bad parent, because despite being all-powerful and all-knowing he failed to teach his 'children' to behave well in a situation where he controlled ALL the variables and foresaw ALL the consequences.  Given these supposed attributes of god, one can only conclude that he planned the punishment for untold millions of innocents before their remote ancestors even committed the 'sin' that he set them up to perform.  Sick stuff.

Let me put it in syllogistic form for you:

P1 - God is omnibenevolent, and therefore would want good things for his creations.
P2 - God is omnipotent, and therefore would be able to arrange things exactly in accordance with his wishes.
P3 - God is omnicogniscent, and therefore would know in advance the consequences of his actions.
C1 - Therefore, when creating Adam and Eve (and the serpent) in the Garden, God must have known, and could therefore have altered the outcome (i.e. punishment for the entire human race).
C2 - P1, P2 and P3 cannot all be true.

Wouldn't be much of an omnipotent God if He felt threatened by rebellion from His creation and couldn't allow it, would He?

A better question (given the above) would be 'Why did an omnipotent god plan a rebellion?'.  Also, it does seem that he is threatened by it if he feels the need to punish it so harshly.

Matthew meant for his geneology to focus on Christ's legal claim to David's throne. Luke's geneology was meant to focus on Christ's genetic link to David through Marry. Thus showing how a prophecy or two for messiah was fullfilled by no other act than Christ being born.

Since we dont even know the identities of the gospel writers i find it presumptuous of you to claim knowledge of their intentions.

The only thing your hung up on is what 'son' can indicate between Joseph and Heli in the verse you quoted from Luke, and I somehow doubt you're prepared to argue that 'son' is never used between in-laws.

Sure.  Hey, i'll bet that Methusala was actually only the son-in-law of Enoch too.  That seems reasonable, dont you think?  i know it says 'son', but if there was a reason it was useful to believe that the text meant something other than it said...  And maybe when it says that Jacob 'begat' Joseph it only means that he married his widowed mother.  Keep twisting there EB, it's fascinating.

Plus we have the Jewish Talmud to back up the idea that Marry was Heli's biological daughter.

Reference?  More ad hoc and selective reading i suspect.

If evolution is to say (rather condescendingly) we are just like any other animal (no different in any way that isn't arbitrary), then getting defensive when an arguement takes you to task on this only shows your contradicting behavior.

Or possibly your misindentification of a strawman as a real argument.  i have said that we are animals, not that we are 'just like any other animal', which is a nonsense position - the very fact that we are having this debate shows that we are different from other animals.

It's even more laughable because in the atheists world humans are the only one's to judge anything. Thus if all of humanity was to become more anamilistic in it's behavior, then who is there to judge us?

It is only in your paradigm that there needs to be someone (other than ourselves) to judge human behaviour.

"i bet i could spend all day showing you similarities between us and apes - genetic, chromosomal, anatomical, behavioural - and you wouldn't for a minute entertain the possibility that we might have a common ancestor."

All it amounts to is a common origin. That you translate this into 'ancestor' means little as 'Originator' fits equally.

Sure, this is a result of a common designer - one who made coding errors when building humans and apes from the same genetic plan:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
"Let us re-iterate what we find on human chromosome 2. Its centromere is at the same place as the chimpanzee chromosome 2p as determined by sequence similarity. Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome centromere of the common ancestor of human and chimp 2q chromosome, at the same position as the chimp 2q centromere (this structure in humans no longer acts as a centromere for chromosome 2."

You described 'doing anything for knowledge' as that's what biting the apple pretty much amounted to, and above you yourself concede that Adam and Eve had 100% knowledge of God's existence.

Yeah, poor parenting, like i said.  Children can't be blamed when they lack a good role model.

Regarding your parallel with the Nazis, eating an apple somehow doesnt cut it as a crime of the same magnitude as deliberately and often fatally experimenting on non-consentual living humans.  The responsibility for Adam and Eve's "crime" can only rest with God, as the being who foresaw all the consequences and could have changed any of the variables.

"Thanks for reminding me - i forgot 'misogynistic'.  Your ad hominems are truly revealing."

Considering your rant against Paul is exactly an ad hominem, I find this statement to be hilarious in it's irony. Pot and kettle DB.

Not quite.  The character and morality of a speaker are relevant to a debate if that speaker claims to be chosen or inspired by God, and the morality of his words especially so.  The truth is that Jesus (as he is portrayed in the NT) was an anti-establishment figure, socially liberal and accepting of outcasts of all kinds.  Paul made Christianity socially conservative, pro-establishment, pro-slavery, anti-women and anti-jewish, and in order to do so he was forced to almost completely refrain from quoting Jesus, otherwise the conflict between his words and those of the man he claimed to represent would have been all too clear.

"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it.  If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.'  Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord." - Albert Schweitzer

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson

Seeing how the entire point of evolution is to show God is no longer needed (it's why atheism took off once evolution gained more acceptance), throwing in God at any point in the process doesn't help.

Removing god is not 'the entire point' of evolution.  That's just paranoid.  Evolutionary theory was developed to explain the diversity of life, where previously the only explanation had been God.  That did make it more reasonable to become an atheist, but then some people might say the same thing about conversing with you, and we'd hardly say that your entire point is to remove god.  It's just a by-product.

As for reconciling evolution with theism, the statistics speak for themselves.  In 1997 an American poll found that 44% of Americans (and 5% of scientists) subscribed to the belief that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years".  But 39% of the American population (and 40% of scientists) believed that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation".  You would have to go and ask one of them exactly why they believe what they believe, but clearly it's not a minority view.  i would be in the third camp, along with 10% of Americans (but 55% of American scientists) who believe that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

And yes, i know, the fact that many people hold a belief does not make it true - i'm not trying to show that it's true (after all, i don't believe in theistic evolution), i'm just saying you should go ask one of them.

"The clarifications you have added in brackets are by no means obvious - unless of course you know what you want the text to mean."

The fact that this was a time before the light bulb, and thus people worked when it was light out in the day and rested at night helps.

Thanks for clarifying.  Notice that it says (in my copy anyway) "in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.  Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.  Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left".  There is nothing except your imagination to say that Jesus is talking about different timezones.  Still, if we're reading stuff into the text, i'd say that the first verse there is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of homosexuality by Jesus.  Two men in one bed?  And one of them righteous enough to be swept up in the rapture?  Seems obvious to me.

We're talking about a supernatural event where God stepped in and fiddled around with the planet. Your notion of 'other effects' occuring during this rather brief period, just leaves me to repeat myself: it's very cute.

You would think that people elsewhere on the planet might have noticed this phenomenon and written something down about it.  i think it's cute that you believe it though.

Well as you've said that you could be just as much in error, I say whether [the gospels] could or couldn't be is equal and irrelavent.

Do you talk nonsense just for fun or out of a genuine failure to understand?  My ability to admit the possibility that i might be in error (something which you have shown no awareness of whatsoever) has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the gospels.  Also, i am not inspired by god (as far as i know), so perhaps my words should not be judged to quite the same standard as those of people who you say were taking dictation from above.  What do you think?

As all you've proven with your laughable and easily refuted geneological problem, is that apparent contradictions in the Bible are only apparent, I must say you're no where near justified.

That's a major concern for me, seeing as how i live for your approval.