1

Thank Jah for people like Flew! One of these days, one of them smarty-smarty thinkers are gonna think up a good reasoning for what we all already know in our hearts and minds and souls. It's just a matter of time before all them other crazed non-theists will unwarp their voodoo-ified mis-thinking and embrace the light...

2

[quote]It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.[/quote]

Says ... who? Some philosopher?

I think the scientists who have been working at proposing testable theories for the origin of the earliest life forms are aware that the task is difficult. I'm not sure what this guy means by "inordinately" or why it matters if it's "inordinately difficult" or just "plain difficult" (like a lot of biology is, especially for non-biologists). Scientists will continue their studies.

I believe that some of the latest theories for the earliest "living" "organisms" include symbiotic masses of sub-organismal proto-"cells".

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I would not be surprised if abiogenesis is occuring on the earth right now. New forms of life may potentially arise and "go extinct" all the time before scientists have a chance to study them. Why is that? Because scientists don't know where it is happening, nor do they know how to measure the existence of such life forms, whose existence might be measure on the nanosecond time scale. Any proposals for how scientists might go about doing that? Nobel Prize for the person who guesses correctly.

3

I think that the biggest problem that has vexed defenders of Christianity is that they tend to take a largely "dungeons and dragons" approach to history. By that I mean they tend to be either too literal or too figurative, not realizing for example that evolution can be false, but mankind made from monkeys since monkeys are made from the same chemicals found in the soil. What I see is something along the lines of an approach that puts everything into the distant, mystical past rather than a past that is both religiously-accurate and logically sound.

I am now writing my own long, "reinterpretation" of Biblical history and it's so far a lot of fun. The format is a novel written from the perspective of the angels engaged in the war, not the trinity or humans. Some of my friends have been almost disturbed at my portrayal of Lucifer as being similar in spirit to a Che Guevara, not the wild-eyed zealot beast that popular Christian literature makes him and hist lieutenants out to be. The most interesting part right now is setting up the stage, among the angels, for the time before the events of Genesis and during the first days of the rebellion and the fall of mankind.

I guess you could say that one of the driving inspirations behind this effort of mine is to show how "man's rational mind" may not be sufficient to understand the totality of creation. We cannot logically deduce that which is beyond our faculties, and that is why, in my writing, Lucifer established a barrier between our world and the rest of creation so that mankind could not regularly perceive the "supernatural."

4

one of the things that troubles me about the theory of evolution is the presumption that extremely long time-lines will bring to pass processes that cannot be explicitly elaborated. wait long enough and anything can happen. This brings to mind the joke, "2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2." I think the theist needs to ask the evolutionist to elaborate processes whereby bits of irreducible complexity come together. the trouble is that both sides are far too emotionally charged for rational discussion.

5

I just want to note that Flew is neither the most, the most respected, nor the best atheistic philosopher out there, and plenty have considered atheism in the same depth.

6

[quote]wait long enough and anything can happen.[/quote]

Yeah, like those wacky atheist geologists who want us to believe that the Grand Canyon was randomly "eroded" out of the ground by the Colorado River. Haw haw. How dumb do they think we are to just accept their materialist agendas without question? Maybe after someone shows us a huge expanse of flat rock dug into a vastly wide and deep canyon visible from space I'll think about believing these geologists. Until then: good luck, suckas! I mean, as if! These guys don't know the difference between theory and fact.

7

Larry
"Maybe after someone shows us a huge expanse of flat rock dug into a vastly wide and deep canyon visible from space I'll think about believing these geologists."

Perhaps you should then look at Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington.
This canyon was created in 6 days (Amusing coincedence I know). It is 450m long and up to 35m deep.

Or even
Providence Canyon is near the town of Lumpkin in southwest Georgia. This canyon was up to 400m long and 50m deep and 180m wide. Made in only 150 years.

Obviously, we have seen canyons form very quickly. It takes a little water over a long time or a lot of water over a little time.

But I am sure you already knew these scientific observations, as you always seem to look at all possible solutions to a problem before making your opinion.

"Until then: good luck, suckas! I mean, as if! These guys don't know the difference between theory and fact."
Actually, the Colorado river making the grand canyon is a hypothesis or theory, and not a fact (It was not an observation itself, but an explanation of how an observed phenomena came into being). But you knew that right?

"Yeah, like those wacky atheist geologists who want us to believe that the Grand Canyon was randomly "eroded" out of the ground by the Colorado River."
Actually, there is still much debate over how the Grand Canyon was formed in the secular scientific community. Alternate hypotheses are also being evaluated. Such as that enlargement of streams and gullies caused it. But of course, you knew that already.

I have to wonder why you sound so confident about your proclomations when scientists themselves do not claim such certainty...

8

Alan, you make me laugh.

The Grand Canyon is one mile deep, 18 miles wide and 277 miles long. The "canyons" you refered to are less than 0.1% the length of the Grand Canyon and about 2% as deep. To put it in perspective for you, it's kind of like the difference between digging a hole in your front yard that is 1 foot deep and 1 foot wide (no problem) and a whole that is 50 feet deep and ten times as wide (good luck, soldier). Comparing those "canyons" you mentioned to the Grand Canyon is like comparing different dog breeds to species of animals. Ain't no comparison. The Grand Canyon was not the accidental result of "natural" forces, no matter what those atheist geologists say.

"Alternate hypotheses are also being evaluated. Such as that enlargement of streams and gullies caused it."

Huh? The "enlargement" of streams and gullies "caused" the Grand Canyon??? Is that what scientists say? Got any cites?

You know who did the Canyon, bro': the Biggest Digger. The Master Sculptor.

9

I believe that some of the latest theories for the earliest "living" "organisms" include symbiotic masses of sub-organismal proto-"cells".

Not theories. Speculations. It's a case of a fixed conclusion in search of plausible evidence: the scientific method in reverse. A few quick comments:

* Biological monomers are stereospecific, whereas non-biologically-catalyzed synthesis of such momoners (e.g. the famous Miller-Urey experiment) yielded racemic mixtures IIRC.

* These monomers are (in the real world) joined together by preexisting biological enzymes that catalyze these dehydration synthesis reactions. In the absence of this catalysis, equilibrium in an aqueous environment would favor the reverse reaction, hydrolysis. Thus the suggestion of unusual clay surfaces just above the water: no evidence for it; it's just needed to avoid equilibrium pressures.

* In the real world, living things all require metabolic pathways to acquire and utilize sources of carbon and nitrogen and use available energy sources to carry out reactions resulting in a net decrease in entropy. No living thing has been observed that lacks even one of these systems; all must be in place and functional at the outset.

Abiogenesis is the epitome of credo ut intelligam.

Kevin

10

"Not theories. Speculations."

Oh, Great Scientist: please tell us all what the profound difference is between a scientific theory and a plausible testable "speculation".

11

"So why does it matter that a retired philosopher is abandoning atheism for a Spinozian deism? The main reason is that few philosophers have thought longer or harder about atheism than Flew. When someone of his stature gives up the “faith” then it appears that we truly have entered what Alister McGrath refers to as “the twilight of atheism.”"

Just keep repeating this to yourself, and perhaps you will succeed in believing it. I believe people are so credulous they can make themselves believe anything. I wonder what percentage of the population considers themselves atheists? I wonder if it has ever been higher? Dream on, Joe.

12

please tell us all what the profound difference is between a scientific theory and a plausible testable "speculation".

Plausible is in the eye of the beholder. IMO, from a biochemical standpoint, it's as plausible as saying that once, long ago (when nobody was looking) water ran uphill for a thousand miles.

Testable? Please explain how any such model could be testable.

Kevin

13

Larry,
"Comparing those "canyons" you mentioned to the Grand Canyon is like"....
Like Comparing the observed rates of sediment disposition today and extrapolating back for millions of years?

You see, more and more when things are investigated, the long time for geological processes such as canyon forming are being eroded away....

Reusser et al., “Rapid Late Pleistocene Incision of Atlantic Passive-Margin River Gorges,” Science, Vol 305, Issue 5683, 499-502, 23 July 2004,
Is a recent example, where rates were found to be 1 or 2 orders of magnitudes higher than previously thought.

"Huh? The "enlargement" of streams and gullies "caused" the Grand Canyon??? Is that what scientists say? Got any cites?"

I would start with...
Earle E. Spamer, 'The Development of Geological Studies in the Grand Canyon', Tryonia 17, 1989

But of course, you already have read it and now all the possible explanations. You seem to be so confident in your pronouncements. ALmost like you know there are no problems with any of the hypotheses involved.
Forget elevation of strata without cracking or lack of deposition of eroded materials....
well. You seem to forget about them with all your
confident pronouncements.

You see. Your confident pronouncements are not science. Science is always tentative. It seems
clear they are dogmatism.

14

Larry,
"Huh? The "enlargement" of streams and gullies "caused" the Grand Canyon??? Is that what scientists say? Got any cites"

Another good one would be
Science News, Vol. 158, No. 14, Sept. 30, 2000, p. 218.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000930/bob9ref.asp

You see, Scientists are not so dogmatic and certain as you seem to think. Perhaps this is why some people do not necessarily believe you when you confidently pronounce things.

15

Joe
"When someone of his stature gives up the “faith” then it appears that we truly have entered what Alister McGrath refers to as “the twilight of atheism.”"

I think this is somewhat premature Joe. Whether atheistic beliefs are held or given up by leading or vocal proponents does not stop it from continuing. I think atheism will continue to exist, not because of logic or rationality, but because of the culture of me that we exist in. Society and culture has placed the individual as the only God, and whilst this self-centered culture exists, atheism will thrive.

16

Alan,

I think this is somewhat premature Joe. Whether atheistic beliefs are held or given up by leading or vocal proponents does not stop it from continuing.

You're right, and there will always be an unthinking, reflexive, self-centered attitude that leads to a disbelief in a deity. But I think that atheism as a philosophically tenable belief system is on its last legs. I think a stripped-down Spinozian deism will take its place.

17

Funny, Joe, philosophers and scientists who adhere to atheism tend to see it as being on its first, not its last legs. It's becoming more and more tenable as we are able to slowly drop the trappings of organized religion and its irrational myths (to use equally polemical language). You may see atheism dying, because one relatively uninteresting atheist has doubts, but atheism is thriving elsewhere.

18

Spot,

You may see atheism dying, because one relatively uninteresting atheist has doubts, but atheism is thriving elsewhere.

Really? Where? Where are all these philosophical defenses of atheism?

19

Perhaps some atheists are of the view that defending atheism is like defending the practice of looking outside to see if it's pouring rain and, if it is, grabbing an umbrella before venturing out the door.

20

Kevin writes

"IMO, from a biochemical standpoint, it's as plausible as saying that once, long ago (when nobody was looking) water ran uphill for a thousand miles."

Doesn't the water next to the seashore run every day? I recall that some refer to this miracle as "the tide."

21

Doesn't the water next to the seashore run every day? I recall that some refer to this miracle as "the tide."

You are resorting to Dawkins' Dodge: making your case by analogy, begging the question of whether the analogy truly is analogous. Turns out it's a bad analogy. The water goes up a short distance due to the gravitational pull of the moon. The cause is well characterized and understood, not to mention the phenomenon is repeatable and predictable.

I'm still waiting for your testable model of abiogenesis.

22

Re the Grand Canyon

"Scientists are not so dogmatic and certain as you seem to think."

Are they dogmatic about erosion as a process which acts over MILLIONS of years to form deep awesome canyons? Are they dogmatic about the Grand Canyon being formed by such processes? I dare say that they are. You haven't shown me any evidence to the contrary, that is for sure.

There is indeed a very informative site which deals with the Grand Canyon and its geologically "rapid" development.

http://www.durangobill.com/Paleorivers_preface.html

The following link is especially interesting:

http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html

23

"The water goes up a short distance due to the gravitational pull of the moon. The cause is well characterized and understood, not to mention the phenomenon is repeatable and predictable."

Who the heck gave you that explanation? Gravity? I don't think so. That is the usual secular humanist explanation, isn't it? I'm more inclined to believe that it's due to Intelligent Grappling, as described below.

http://thamus.org/News/science/IG_theory.shtml

"The cause is well characterized and understood, not to mention the phenomenon is repeatable and predictable."

Is it well understood? Is that why Hawking just changed his position re black holes? Is that why scientists are still trying to accurately measure these alleged gravity waves that some of them have been imagining for so many years? Why do you believe these scientists anyway? Their value system is based on materialism, a dead end. If a non-materialist explanation for gravity was presented to them, they would ignore it.

"I'm still waiting for your testable model of abiogenesis."

Any model for abiogenesis which doesn't rely on supernatural explanations is testable. Example: when the first life forms arose, the earth was much hotter. Prediction: life forms should exist which can survive in really hot environments. Discovery: such life forms do exist (see, e.g., Yellowstone; see, e.g., vents at the sea floor). Prediction: at least some of these life forms should have DNA sequences which shows them to have diverged a long time ago from other life forms (i.e., the last common ancestor is ancient). Discovery: confirmed.

See how it works? You make a prediction and then you look for confirmation of that prediction.

24

Joe, here are a few examples, some of which are better for their references than their arguments.

The Impossibility of God by Michael Martin

Embracing the Power of Humanism by Paul Kurtz

The Final Superstition: A Critical Evaluation of the Judeo-Christian Legacy by Joseph L Daleiden

Atheism: A very Short Introduction by Julian Baggini (good for references)

On Humanism by Richard Norman

God and the State by Michael Bakunin

God's Defenders: What They Believe and Why They Are Wrong by S. T. Joshi

Life, Sex, and Ideas: The Good Life Without God by A. C. Grayling

Meditations for the Humanist: Ethics for a Secular Age by A. C. Grayling

No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe by Matt Young

Atheism: A Philosophical justification by Michaael Martin

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

Why Atheism? by George H. Smith

Atheism, Morality, and Meaning by Michael martin

Philosophy Radio segments Scroll down to Philosophy of Religion. There are three segments on atheism or secularism by philosophers.

Facing Up: Science and its Cultural Adversaries by Steven Weinberg

In addition, the following are a few examples of atheist intellectuals (mostly philosophers)

Ernst Nagel

Dan Dennett

Hilary Putnam

Jurgen Habermas

Richard Rorty

Camille Paglia

D. E. Krueger

R. LePoidevin

David Chalmers

Noam Chomsky

Thomas Nagel

Peter Singer

Desmond Morris

the Churchlands

the remaining existentialists and most phenomenologists

Stephen Hawking (most physicists, in fact)

Pretty much all of the post-structuralists, from Foucault to Baudrillard, with Derrida, Lyotard, and the like, in between.

Contemporary Marxists

The Objectivists

25

Larry
"Are they dogmatic about erosion as a process which acts over MILLIONS of years to form deep awesome canyons?"

No. As the link I previously provided shows. The ages are coming down. I believe the Marble canyon portion of the grand canyon is down to 700,000 years. That certainly doesn't sound like MILLIONS of years.
But of course, you already knew that because you take in all the available scientific evidence before forming your opinions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020722074554.htm

"Are they dogmatic about the Grand Canyon being formed by such processes?"
Well no. They are not, as the above link shows. As do other examples. Canyons can be formed by a large amount of water over a short time or a small flow of water over a long time. I am suprised a scientific person like you would not know this?

"http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html"
I'm sorry. I am dealing with science here, not some feeble straw man and ad hominem attack.

Let me ask you a question...If I can answer all 3 main points and several of the minor points in the page, will you agree that the noahic flood is a possible alternate explanation to the geological features we see?

Really Larry, I expect you would have better material to rely on than this...Seeing as how you always investigate thoroughly before making confident assertions that is...

26

Spot,

"Really? Where? Where are all these philosophical defenses of atheism?"

The burden of proof is on the theist. Atheists don't make extraordinary claims. Nonetheless, there are innumerable defenses of atheism on the web. Do your homework; don't shift your burden to others.

27

"Atheists don't make extraordinary claims"

Who do you think your kidding? Atheists claim there is no God. That's a claim so extraordinary it requires unreasoning faith to accept it.

28

"Who the heck gave you that explanation? Gravity? I don't think so. That is the usual secular humanist explanation, isn't it? I'm more inclined to believe that it's due to Intelligent Grappling, as described below"

OK, maybe you should contact the folks at NASA and present your theory to them; they seem to have bought into this misguided gravity stuff too.

"Any model for abiogenesis which doesn't rely on supernatural explanations is testable."

Mere assertion. You aren't demonstrating such a sweeping claim.

" Example: when the first life forms arose, the earth was much hotter. Prediction: life forms should exist which can survive in really hot environments. Discovery: such life forms do exist (see, e.g., Yellowstone; see, e.g., vents at the sea floor)."

Come on now. The existence of hypothermophiles doesn't demonstrate abiogenesis. If models of abiogenesis predicted a cold origin, no doubt bateria in the Artic would be invoked as proof. This sort of reasoning is not open to falsification.

"Prediction: at least some of these life forms should have DNA sequences which shows them to have diverged a long time ago from other life forms (i.e., the last common ancestor is ancient). Discovery: confirmed."

At least some of them? No, all of them should. But you don't provide evidence of any.

Your response is incredibly facile. I suggest you put down your copy of Dawkins and go talk to an honest biologist.

29

"I believe people are so credulous they can make themselves believe anything."

HAHAHAHAH...DUH? Thats right! I assume you mean people OTHER than yourself are "so credulous." Otherwise, I've never seen a funnier piece of irony in my life...

30

"Who do you think your kidding? Atheists claim there is no God. That's a claim so extraordinary it requires unreasoning faith to accept it."

That's your definition of atheism. Nice try, though.

"HAHAHAHAH...DUH? Thats right! I assume you mean people OTHER than yourself are "so credulous." "

That's right, anonymous scoffer. Many people, in fact, but fortunately not all people.

31

Joe:

You're right, and there will always be an unthinking, reflexive, self-centered attitude that leads to a disbelief in a deity.

32

Gary:

Atheists claim there is no God. That's a claim so extraordinary it requires unreasoning faith to accept it.

Must you assume that the pink-and-purple polka-dotted toaster god of the sky exists, until someone has conclusively proven that it doesn't exist? Are you relying solely on blind faith to deny the P&PPDTGotS?

33

"The default state of belief is disbelief."

That's your preference. Mine is to suspend judgment pending further information, rather than affirm a negative.

Life arising form nonlife through random chemical processes? Randomly-generated information? I call that an extraordinary claim.

34

Correction: my reference to "hypothermophiles" in the above post should have been "hyperthermophiles. That's what I get for posting before coffee.

Funny though... none of the seemingly scientifically-literate folks here caught it.

35

Larry
"Any model for abiogenesis which doesn't rely on supernatural explanations is testable. Example: when the first life forms arose, the earth was much hotter. Prediction: life forms should exist which can survive in really hot environments."

Errr. This is not good science at all. A prediction should be something that if it does not come to pass, invalidates your theory. It should also been seen to flow directly from the original premise.

Here, if no lifeforms able to survive hot were found, then you could merely claim they had all died out and were outcompeted by other life.
Conversely, lifeforms able to survive hot temps today could easily have an alternative explanation of having arisen recently.

There is just no way to scientifically determine how something happened billions of years ago. The best we can do is show that is possible today. This is why science deals so poorly with the past.

36

Kevin:

So you're suspending judgment on the Pink and Purple Polka-Dotted Toaster God of the Sky?

37

Clever Gary writes:

"Atheists claim there is no God. That's a claim so extraordinary it requires unreasoning faith to accept it."

Yo, Gary. I also claim that there is no green rubber ball that floats behind your head at all time except when you or someone else tries to detect it (when it disappears and floats behind someone else's head). Prove me wrong.

And Gary: I also don't believe in a lot of other things, like God, for which there is no evidence whatsoever and for which I no other compelling reason to ignore the fact that there is no evidence (i.e., make an exception). In general, God's supporters tend to be a bit, um, judgmental shall we say? And a tad hypocritical.

So it's logic with a dash of good taste that keeps me in company with the growing numbers of atheists in this country. We'll soon be taking over and amending the Constitution, of course, so that it coincides perfectly with our nihilist illogical ethos. Har dee har. Onwards!!!!!

38

"This is not good science at all. A prediction should be something that if it does not come to pass, invalidates your theory."

Huh? If someone predicts that if A is true than event B must take place at time Y and event B is always detectable, your little "rule" about what a prediction is makes sense.

But your little rule about predictions is completely bogus.

I don't think you know much about science at all. In fact, I'm certain that you don't.

"lifeforms able to survive hot temps today could easily have an alternative explanation of having arisen recently. "

Go for it, man. Let me know when you publish your "alternative explanation." I'm sure it'll be really, um, interesting.

39

"This is why science deals so poorly with the past."

So sayeth Alan! Yup, everything that happened before penmanship is just pure fantasy. You heard it here first, folks.

Oh, uh, when you say "so poorly," just how poorly is that exactly?

40

"If models of abiogenesis predicted a cold origin, no doubt bateria in the Artic would be invoked as proof. This sort of reasoning is not open to falsification."

Not as PROOF, Kevin, but as EVIDENCE.

Once again we see the black-and-white mindset at work here on the Evangelical Outpost.

Seriously, I may be stupid enough to try and get you to realize that when someone says "there is no evidence" for abiogenesis or evolution that someone is full of crap. But I'm not so stupid as to try and PROVE any scientific issue beyond a reasonable doubt (i'm guessing that's the standard, but it could be higher that that I suppose) to someone who is skeptical about evolution. Even I am not that masochistic.

41

tgirsch,

So you're suspending judgment on the Pink and Purple Polka-Dotted Toaster God of the Sky?"

Never heard of him/her/it. You're free to make your case.

Larry,

"Not as PROOF, Kevin, but as EVIDENCE."

No kidding. Given the level of certitude shown by some folks, I thought it had attained the level of dogma.

"Once again we see the black-and-white mindset at work here on the Evangelical Outpost."

So, canards having proved ineffective, you now descend to labelling of those who disagree with you. Can't say I'm suprised. I've never yet seen a philosophical materialist who hasn't in the end resorted to more sophisticated than thou posturing. Truth be told, the back and white mindset I'm detecting here is yours.

"I may be stupid enough to try and get you to realize that when someone says "there is no evidence" for abiogenesis or evolution that someone is full of crap."

Like the non-evidence you already cited? How about you stop trying to insinuate that I don't understand how science works and just deliver the goods? After all, it's not myfalse scientific claims who have been undermining my credibility here.

42

Larry
"But your little rule about predictions is completely bogus."

Thank you for making it so clear with this devestating reply as to why the basic rules of doing scientific predictions is wrong. The sheer eloquence of your response and its wide scope have left me incapable of refuting your amazingly complex but clearly compelling response.

"I don't think you know much about science at all. In fact, I'm certain that you don't."

And you talk about "God's supporters" being a tad judgemental? Perhaps you should actually put up or shut up. You have failed to do enough research as your rather poor showing in discussing the Grand Canyon shows and yet you have the gall to say that I don't know much about science?

You continue to question the expertise or intelligence of anyone who disagrees with your dogmatic pronouncements as opposed to dealing with the actual arguments put forward.

"Go for it, man. Let me know when you publish your "alternative explanation." I'm sure it'll be really, um, interesting."

So you seem to be implying that if scientists suddenly decide that earth was colder in the time period that life first started, that they would not then conclude that life started as a cold-tolerant organism and that heat-tolerant organisms arose later? Is this what you are saying? Yes or no?

43

The above post at September 1, 2004 06:13 PM was mine.

44

Glad I'm not the only one seeing it.

45

Alan

I'm not going to waste any time debating whether the flood that floated Noah's Ark actually occurred or not. If you have convincing evidence that such a flood occured, then by all means publish it. If your argument is convincing, your name will be remembered forever. Seriously. If it's not convincing, then no big deal. You'll be forgotten like all the other creationist hacks who have floated bogus arguments about the flood for the past 100 years and have been laughed at outright by serious scientists.

A couple laughs were provided by you that I want to thank you for:

"I believe the Marble canyon portion of the grand canyon is down to 700,000 years. "

Um... fine. I also believe that parts of the Grand Canyon were intelligently designed. Seriously. Like the part with the railing.

The issue wasn't about the age of "portions" of the Grand Canyon, you dissembling pretender, it was about the age of the Grand Canyon, period. PLEASE SHOW ME A CITATION FROM A REPUTABLE JOURNAL WHICH SAYS THAT THE GRAND CANYON IS LESS THAN 2 MILLION YEARS OLD. When you do that, I will back off my "claim" that the Grand Canyon is not millions of years old. Okay? And then you can apologize for not paying attention to what we were discussing.

"Thank you for making it so clear with this devestating reply as to why the basic rules of doing scientific predictions is wrong."

There you go again. What "basic rule" are you referring to, Alan? I've done thousands of experiments, obtained a Ph.D. from one of the premier universities in my field, and I never heard anyone talk about the "basic rule" you described (or attempted to describe).

How about you try to formulate this "basic rule" of scientific predictions again? Maybe you can throw in a time limit or something. I'm not trying to give you the answer, but maybe just jumpstart the engine.

46

"you dissembling pretender"

I nearly spewed my Guinness on my monitor.

47

"I nearly spewed my Guinness on my monitor."

Guinness? I had you pegged as a serious Bordeaux drinker. ;)

48

Larry
"There you go again. What "basic rule" are you referring to, Alan? I've done thousands of experiments, obtained a Ph.D. from one of the premier universities in my field, and I never heard anyone talk about the "basic rule" you described (or attempted to describe)."

Is that All? Am I meant to be impressed?

When you actually provide a prediction that means anything more than waste paper I'll be more impressed.

"There you go again. What "basic rule" are you referring to, Alan?"
Okay. Let me repeat it for you. This time I will use smaller words, so maybe you can grasp the concept.
If your (i.e. you) hypothesis (i.e. your guess about the past) makes a prediction that if 'A' is true (i.e. if 'A' is how it was), then we will observe (i.e. see) 'B'. Then, if we do not see 'B' (i.e. #!%$# Where is it!), 'A' should be rejected (i.e. said to be false).

If however, you can keep 'A' after 'B' has not been observed (i.e. #!%$# Where is it!) or observing 'B' can be explained by other causes ('C' implies 'B' irrespective of 'A') then your prediction is useless as real evidence for 'A'(i.e. It should be thrown into the trash like the washed up pseudo scientific crap it is until you can actual refine it to differentiate between 'A' and 'C')

As a simple example, once again using small words.
I predict that if it has rained in the last 10 minutes, my driveway will be wet.
If my driveway is not wet. Can I conclude that it did not rain? No. Maybe my car was parked on it.
If my driveway is wet. Can I conclude that it did ran? No. Maybe someone was watering the garden or washing down the driveway.
Obviously my hypothesis and predictions are seriously lacking.
Why? Because I have not properly controlled the variables in the situation.
There are many possible causes of both a wet and dry driveway and so any prediction based merely upon this variable is essentially worthless.
Much like your 'prediction' about heat-resistant lifeforms.

"I'm not going to waste any time debating whether the flood that floated Noah's Ark actually occurred or not."
You provided the links that you obviously felt were compelling evidence. I merely asked a simple question which you have failed to answer.

"You'll be forgotten like all the other creationist hacks who have floated bogus arguments about the flood for the past 100 years and have been laughed at outright by serious scientists."
If your example of predictions and your dogmatic attitude is what you think makes a serious scientist, then I will gladly choose not to be considered as such by you.

"PLEASE SHOW ME A CITATION FROM A REPUTABLE JOURNAL WHICH SAYS THAT THE GRAND CANYON IS LESS THAN 2 MILLION YEARS OLD"
So It is irrelevant to you that parts of the grand canyon, previously thought to take MILLIONS of years, and now is down less to than that.
I can just see a person like you larry, 5 years ago, dogmatically yelling and screaming at someone who dares to question the "SCIENTIFIC FACT" that the Marble Canyon portion of the grand canyon took millions of years to form.
You see. That is why science is TENTATIVE. That is people who claim more certainty than science can possibly show should be considered dogmatic and arrogant, and certainly have anything they say taken with a grain of salt.
Ironically this change in "age" was due to geological processes ignored by "serious scientists" for years but instead were championed by "creationist hacks"

I find it quite illuminating that I show evidence that things can carve a canyon .1% the length of the grand canyon and 1-2% of the height in 6 DAYS, and you dismiss it. Clearly if the present is a key to the past, extrapolating this means that 20 years is all it would take to form the grand canyon.

I find it illuminating that you had no knowledge of alternatives to the colorado river cause of the Grand Canyon and yet still was happy to make dogmatic statements about its formation.

I Find it illuminating that you resort to insults and derision instead of merely giving the evidence, which if it is so conclusive and compelling would easily silence to opposition.

I doubt you have any concept of how big the Marble Canyon portion of the Grand Canyon is...I doubt you know what the problems with the slow and gradual erosion of the canyon is....You don't seem to care about any evidence that conflicts with your dogmatically held position, and THAT is why you don't bother to look into that evidence, even though it is printed in REPUTABLE JOURNALS...

This is why I doubt you even know the original timescale that was believed for the grand canyon or how it has decreased by more than an order of magnitude, or that you even bothered to get the sciencenews article I gave you details of which talk about it ALL being formed in less than a million years....

Really, perhaps you should sue your university for teaching you so poorly....

49

Your ultimate video on demand solutions

50

Two corrections about the list of atheist intellectuals. Hilary Putnam is not an atheist,. though he once was a materialist. See the Introduction to his 'Renewing Philosophy', and the essay 'Wittgenstein on Religious belief' in that volume. Thomas Nagel is a bit ambigious. In 'The Last Word' he says somethign akin to, 'I prefer a world lacking a God, but I expect there is one on account of the fact that many of the smartest people I know believe.' I do not have specific page references, sorry.

And the rule of scientific investigation that Alan, I believe it was, cited sounds a lot like the the hypo-deductive method (though one apparent disconfirming instance won't disprove the theory of course; there is for instance always the possibility that the observation conditions were inadequate. There is also the possibility that the theory need only be slightly tweaked to cover the failure to predict. One might think that this makes it a different theory, but that matter is one for semanticists). Karl Popper was a proponent of this as a way out of the problem of induction. It doesn't do that, but it does provide a morel plausible model for scientific thought than does simple induction. Charles Peirce advanced something similar many years before, but called it 'abduction.' The name was silly so it didn't catch on and he isn't given much credit.

I had always been under the impression that it was a basic methodological rule of science, and if it isn't my faith in science would take a hit. I do no actual science though, so I cannot testify to what scientists actually think or do, but this rule seems an instance of modus tollens, which is a rule in every formal logical system. If A then B. Not-B. Therefore, not-A. Making modus tollens specific to science you would likely make A the theory, and B some observation the occurrence of which A would explain. This sounds like the rule in question. And nobody wants to deny modus tollens right?

I am not sure what the sides are here, or who is on what side. That doesn't matter much, since I likely will not be back, so no use flaming me or anything, unless you enjoy the process of typing a flame out message.