Please enlighten us on your upgraded plan.

What exactly is the “vested interest” of keeping man’s privileged place in the universe? Or at the center of creation?

Radiometric dating is dependent on a number of constants. My suggestion is entirely dependent on the laws of physics remaining as a constant…don’t be silly… In order for radiometric dating results to be accurate a closed system is required. My suggestion is that the earth is not a closed system, an idea to which a lot of scientist adhere (albeit for different reasons) and also why we have been relying heavily on radiometric dating of meteorite samples.

Coincidentally, the flood can account for a vast number of ecological changes on planet Earth.

Hmmm… I don’t get your last statement, However, I wonder if you are a history buff at all… I mean, how do you know Temujin really lived to become Genghis Khan (and posthumously Khagan). I’d say the bible has as much if not more historical value and can be verified for consistency and accuracy. And if I chose to live by the Maxims of Ptahhotep, would you tell me that it’s pointless? That it has no intrinsical value, as it’s probably based on assumption and not on quantifiable parameters?

The bible’s claim for truth has NEVER been solely that it says so… quite the opposite. Not only does it assert it’s validity by being historically accurate and remaining verifaiably consistent,
but it accurately deals with issues that science is useless for. Life issues such as love, hate, greed, compassion, right, wrong, good, evil, commitment, treachery, sacrifice and selfishness. These are the things that make us human, these are the things that I think of when I look at my wife and my children, at my friends and at my enemies. When I teach my children, their success is not dependent on whether Euclidian Geometry accurately describes physical space or not (and euclidian geometry is considerably more reliable than the theory of evolution). I can bet my life, that at the moment of decision, my children could care less whether paleontology needs to be able to explain historical observation by using extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution.

In a nutshell, the foolishness in man’s heart is not dependent on whether the theory of evolution is accurate or not. The foolishness comes to fruition when we use the theory of evolution to justify moral relativism, which is really what all this is about.

No one in his right mind would start arguing whether Rigveda
(Vedic Script) is accurate or not. That is because it is irrelevant to our moral state. That is why there is such a concerted effort (including this site) to discredit the Bible. Because if it can be discredited, people will feel much better about themselves.

And that is my observation and experimentation.

Now I can say definitively, no…never studied the Theory of Mind….

You said:

“Oh, and as far as I’m concerned, the theory of evolution is the same old tired argument… it kind of reminds me of the pre-Copernican geocentric worldview that was so entrenched in the mainstream intelligentsia, academics were adding more
and more justifications to why certain aspects could not be explained, rather than scratching the whole thing and going back to square one.”

That’s an interesting take…you might want to pass that to Ben Stein and company for their sequel. Of course, the fact that the “intelligentsia” you refer to was largely composed of philosophers and theologians who had a vested interest in maintaining man’s privileged place in the universe. It is the same today. Creationism or intelligent design or whatever you want to call it is the same old pseudoscience designed to keep man, if not at the physical center of creation, at least at the figurative center of creation. The only difference is that science actually has a voice today.

It’s ironic that you complain about the assumptions made by biologists, then in the very same response you put forward the story of the flood and why that means that radiometric dating doesn’t work–complete with the implicit assumption that the laws of physics have changed!? At least the “assumption” at the base of science is that observable processes are relatively consistent and predictable.

As far as “scratching the whole thing and going back to square one:” That’s funny, considering you’re saying that a book whose only claim to truth is that it says so is a better source for science than observation and experiment.

That’s a good observation, however it is rather likely that for some, their very experience is what has turned them away from God, and in failing to reconcile the two, discounting the existence of God becomes the more attractive choice. As human beings, we have a tendency to look for validation rather than use a more “scientific” (if you will) approach, that looks for ways to challenge our paradigm (that’s my SAT word for the day… LOL)

Theory of Mind. I think you would find it rather interesting reading… right up your alley, and I rather enjoy foraying there as well.

I’m glad we are slowly but surely moving away from the ad hominem attacks and getting down to the details that really matter.

Let me clarify my POV once and for all. My belief in God is not dependent on anyone else in the world agreeing with it or accepting it. The very foundation of my faith in God is rooted in what one could easily refer to as “intangibles” My life experiences, including my revelation of being in the presence of God, knowing his peace, surviving tragedies and helping others cope with it, seeing the effects of the works of God in my life and in others, even though I’ve never seen God. I also haven’t seen the wind, but I can clearly see the effects, and I understand the mechanics, therefore I know that wind exists. Nothing in empirical science or in my personal experience indicates that God does NOT exist. Quite on the contrary. The more I study, the more I contemplate, the more I challenge and allow myself to be challenged, the more grounded I get in my belief.

The quote by LC Lewontin left me cold for two reasons… the very mechanics of evolutionary biology are based on assumptions. It does require faith to accept the Theory of Evolution. Secondly, I feel it was a tirade because he is inviting everyone who believes like him to contradict the first principles on which his entire argument is founded, in order to quiet everyone who is not as well versed in his own argument… that’s hypocritical at best.

Half of the things that you see (all of them negative) are caused by people who do NOT believe in God (their claims notwithstanding) the other half is caused by the effects of living in a fallen world.

I’ve never claimed in my posts that everyone who does not believe like I do is a fool. I’ve only claimed that about those that do two things… either they only parrot what they do not understand (much like the “we’re fighting a war in Iraq for oil” statement), or the ones that even though they know the truth they suppress it in order to be more comfortable in their sin (usually they accuse me of seeing things in Black and White, rather than understanding the complexity of issues). I’d say about 90% of the time, once I’m able to establish a certain measure of trust with someone while speaking face to face, there is always an ulterior reason for rejecting the idea of God. The causes are inadvertently (and in order of frequency): bitterness/unforgiveness, personal lifestyle choices, no real exposure to the bible, no interest in knowing, and lastly intellectualism.

Oh, and as far as I’m concerned, the theory of evolution is the same old tired argument… it kind of reminds me of the pre-Copernican geocentric worldview that was so entrenched in the mainstream intelligentsia, academics were adding more and more justifications to why certain aspects could not be explained, rather than scratching the whole thing and going back to square one.

In a nutshell, the observations/calculations used as proof in the theory of evolution may be precise in themselves, however they are based on faulty assumptions.

Just one quick example… the bible refers to the firmament falling when the flood took place. Apparently it had never rained before. Afterwards was the first time that a rainbow formed. If that statement is accurate, then I can rather clearly see how radiometric dating (which is dependent on a number of constants) can be inaccurate. And I seriously doubt, that a nomadic semitic tribe a couple of thousand years ago came up with a system to confound the wise ones of our age.

For a long time I believed that the theory of evolution was reality. In addition, I don’t believe we can separate all aspects of our life and allow only evolutionary biology to be our “guiding light” so to say.

I appreciated the second quote because it allowed for the understanding that only mathematics is an exact science that can provide proof.

Aside from that we are left with compelling evidence. There is much compelling evidence pointing to both the existence of God, and to the validity of evolution. Considering all that entails our limited, tumultuous, sometimes futile existence here on Earth, it takes a rather greater leap of faith to discount the existence of God.

As such, it is perfectly reasonable for us to exclaim, “Will the real God please stand up!”

Not sure what that refers to, so I’m guessing no.

Before I respond to your post, I need to understand something about your POV… are you perhaps a ToM student?