Dan,

The reasons that creationist "scientists" papers don't stand up to peer review can't all be put down to bias, the complete lack merit has more to do with it.

Any peer review has to have justification and is not "I don't like it." and any peer reviewer that shows bias risks his reputation.

The fact that creationists are so far from orthodoxy put them right on the fringe with the "scientists" that deny that HIV causes aids.

Because I replied to your sarcastic comment does not lift it to a rational argument.

Trav

Your comment of "because naturalism itself would mean that all causes are nonrational" is another circular argument.

Naturalism does not say that things don't happen for a reason, only that it is not following a higher life form's direction.

Because a tree falls in a forest and no one sees it, does not mean it did not happen for a rational reason. We may just not know or care.

busche basher your link<<...separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed.>>>funny its mutations at the micro level[little'evolutions that underpin the macro tTHEORY

<<Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation.>>..big words saying ASSUMED to be correct

<<However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.>>>of course lol...much is promised in the big heading[till one hits the small print

<<Therefore,the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred,>>no they go straight to the ASSUMPTION the must have...lol

<<None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa.>>>egsactly

<<Because of this evidentiary independence,..the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection,or the inheritance of acquired characaters,or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism..of adaptive evolutionary..change.>>lol essentially excluding proofs yet<<The scientific case for common descent stands,regardless.>>stands regardless of no proof[ie by faith..lol]

<<Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis.>>>now you exclude even explaining the first life..lol

<<In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past,regardless of its origin.>>yet you nutters insist it was BY CHANCE

<<All scientific theories have their respective,specific explanatory domains;no scientific theory proposes to explain everything>>>this link explains even less[do you even read?.

[Because a tree falls in a forest and no one sees it, does not mean it did not happen for a rational reason. We may just not know or care.]

Yes. And you would be employing rationality to give a reason. If your rational reason was inferred from nonrational causes, then how can it be rational at all?

If naturalism is true, then all causes for beliefs are ultimately nonrational, which leads me to believe that either rationality doesn't really exist, or that naturalism is false.

Given the two alternatives, it seems far more likely that naturalism is false.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, Trav.

>>If naturalism is true, then all causes for beliefs are ultimately nonrational, which leads me to believe that either rationality doesn't really exist, or that naturalism is false. Given the two alternatives, it seems far more likely that naturalism is false.<<

On the basis that you allow yourself to consider only these alternatives, of course you will decide one or the other. Interestingly, it doesn't matter a fig which one you pick, since reducing the argument to these two on an either/or basis is itself irrational.

You tried this on earlier, with equally fishy results.

>>I'm very suspect of the claim that use of rational inference could lead us to a belief in naturalism (ie: the natural world is all that exists), because naturalism itself would mean that all causes are nonrational. Therefore, that'd be a self refuting belief.<<

How on earth do you derive from "the natural world is all there is", the conclusion that this would mean "all causes are non-rational"?

There is absolutely no logical connection between the two.

I genuinely cannot understand your need to justify your faith on a rational basis. You have made a choice to believe in a specific form of the supernatural. In order to do so, there is absolutely no requirement to force the real world into an irrational shape.

Faith and nature can live side by side. There is no need for conflict. But they do need to be kept apart, in that the existence of one should not necessarily rule out the existence of the other.

The problem arises not with the acceptance that the supernatural can exist, but that that there is only one form that it can take, and that form happens to be the one you have chosen to believe in.

So ultimately it is not an existential issue, but a people problem.

Pericles,

[How on earth do you derive from "the natural world is all there is", the conclusion that this would mean "all causes are non-rational"?]

The natural world consists of molecules, atoms, quarks, protons, neutrons, electromagnetic forces and the like. None of these can be said to be "rational". They are effectively random. They may appear ordered, but according to naturalism, they started due to a random accident. That is, they are the way they are because of a nonrational, non ordered event.

Yet, anyone who accepts that a conclusion of an argument follows from it's premise is performing a rational inference. They are ordering their thoughts in a process.

If naturalism is true, people can't perform a rational inference. Therefore, we should completely reject the idea that rational inferences lead us to naturalism, because that's effectively saying that rational inferences lead us to conclude that we cannot rationally infer anything- it's self refuting.

Of course, the other option, rather than rejecting naturalism, as I said would be rejecting the idea of the rational inference. But that wouldn't appear very palatable to naturalist atheists, many of whom call themselves "rationalists" now would it?

[I genuinely cannot understand your need to justify your faith on a rational basis. You have made a choice to believe in a specific form of the supernatural. In order to do so, there is absolutely no requirement to force the real world into an irrational shape]

I'm not attempting to justify my faith. In this discussion, all I've done is point out the irrationality of naturalism, that is all. The rejection of naturalism doesn not automatically lead to any particular belief, because it could lead to many.

Generally speaking, when it comes to the relationship between rationality and belief in religion, or indeed any particular worldview I wouldn't consider myself a "strong rationalist". I consider myself a critical rationalist. Which is significantly different.

"The natural world consists of molecules, atoms, quarks, protons, neutrons, electromagnetic forces and the like. None of these can be said to be "rational""
Why not?
Quantum mechanics is said to be the most successful theory in the history of science. It's capacity for accurate predictions is unmatched. I would suggest it must therefore be 'rational'.
And yet, QM is based largely on Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle; the idea that it is impossible to determine the exact location and velocity of a particle at any given time. Despite the fact that it is impossible to predict the decay of any single particle, the half life of elements -even radically unstable ones- can be predicted with astonishing accuracy.
Has the 'nonrational' now become 'rational'?
I must agree with Pericles on more than one point. Trav's continual leaps from conclusion to conclusion with no connective evidence defies rational explication.
"If naturalism is true, people can't perform a rational inference".
If religion is true, people wouldn't need to perform a rational inference.
I really don't understand why religionists continue to pick fights with science. There are questions -which even the hardest core atheistic scientists admit- they will never know the answers to.
Why not put your God there, and stop fighting losing battles?