[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'?]

It is not the particles themselves which are rational, it is the people who are rationally inferring something from them, who are performing a rational inference and who are therefore rational.

[If religion is true, people wouldn't need to perform a rational inference.]

Why?

[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?]

I'm not picking any kind of fight with science at all, I'm merely showing it's incompatability with the philosophy of naturalism. Science relies on rational inference, and rational inference is incompatible with the philosophy of naturalism. You may know I'm a christian, but I haven't said anything about that in this discussion.

The rejection of naturalism could lead to any of a number of beliefs- theism, pantheism and deism are the three that spring to mind- although I'm sure any philosopher of religion could tell you of multiple other philosophical positions which reject naturalism but don't believe in the sort of God you're thinking of.

[There are questions -which even the hardest core atheistic scientists admit- they will never know the answers to.]

It's interesting that you mention this. It seems to me that scientists are divided about whether science will ever give us any kind of full explanation of "how". Some are optimistic, others less so. It seems to me unlikely that there will ever be concensus on any explanations. I believe you're talking about questions relating to "why". I think most atheist scientists would argue those questions are unnecessary. Of course science will never answer them, because it can't. The question then becomes whether we actually need to answer them

Naturalism:(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.
Rational:Consistent with or based on or using reason.
Trav's Dogma:
"Science relies on rational inference, and rational inference is incompatible with the philosophy of naturalism."
I would suggest a far more reasonable statement would be:
the philosophy of naturalism relies on rational inference, and is fully compatible with science.
Another characteristic of dedicated theists; their love of unsubstantiated dogma. When rationality fails, it comes down to 'faith'.

Again, I’m derided as ‘dishonest’ for giving an opinion, one shared by many thousands of others. Is everyone who holds this view dishonest?

Was Colin Patterson dishonest when, in discussing ancestral forms in the fossil record, said, “There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument”? If evolution were real, we could expect to find millions of in-between forms in the fossil record. Instead, we’ll discuss the merits of a limited few, while here’s one expert admitting there are none.

Bushbasher claims there are mountains of evidence for evolution. Many don’t see it that way. Whether it’s “many scientists” or “a number of scientists”, what does it matter? It’s not about counting votes. One person with sufficient evidence and a good argument beats 99 with an inferior argument.

Shadow,
Comparing creationists to someone who denies that HIV causes AIDS is an unfair comparison. For the cause of AIDS can be examined through repeatable experiments. Origins cannot be decided by repeatable experiment. The origin of the Grand Canyon occurred but once. The origin of mankind occurred a long time ago. Original events are unrepeatable.

So by its nature, the study or origins ultimately is more reliant on philosophical argument, as those original events fall outside the realm of current experience.

Do I have religious motivations? While I’ve already admitted a bias (earlier on this thread), it’s obvious that others too have bias. These days, the most vocal proponents of evolution, such as Dawkins and Will Provine are ardent atheists. I’d be willing to guess that my main debating opposition on OLO also at least lean towards atheism. Would that not be so?

I said that creationist scientific papers are (or would be) routinely rejected along philosophical lines rather than merit by most mainstream journals. I’m asked to prove it. I say such is the history of science. For hundreds of years, since resistance to heliocentricity, orthodoxy buckles slowly to a good idea.

Robert Higgs put it like this:
‘Researchers who employ unorthodox methods or theoretical frameworks have great difficulty under modern conditions in getting their findings published in the “best” journals or, at times, in any scientific journal. Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of practitioners as nut cases - until it becomes impossible to deny their findings, a time that often comes only after one generation's professional ring-masters have died off. Science is an odd undertaking: everybody strives to make the next breakthrough, yet when someone does, he is often greeted as if he were carrying the ebola virus. Too many people have too much invested in the reigning ideas; for those people an acknowledgment of their own idea's bankruptcy is tantamount to an admission that they have wasted their lives. Often, perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance, they never admit that their ideas were wrong.’

If the playing field were even, then at least a few creationist papers would find favour amongst reviewers, considering the calibor of scientist that support creation, who regularly have their papers published on less controversial topics. That this doesn’t happen only reflects on the slope of the playing field.

In fact, creationist papers are peer reviewed in creationist journals by their real peers.

grim<<Naturalism:(philosophy)>>>thus not based on science fact,and its logic is thus as debatable as any philosphical BELIEF is

<<the doctrine>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&defl=en&q=define:doctrine&ei=6mErSvHgHJTe7APc993tCA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

<<Definitions of doctrine on the Web:a belief..(or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school..wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Doctrine(Latin: doctrina)..is a codification of beliefs or.."a body of teachings"..or"instructions",..taught principles..or positions,..as the body of that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or super'natural' explanations.
thus quite IR<<Rational:..Consistent with..or based on or using reason.>>in lue of science fact

<<I would suggest a far more reasonable statement would be:..the philosophy of naturalism relies on rational inference,and is fully compatible with science.>>>i would say if science VALIDATE the science

Another characteristic of dedicated A-theists;..their love of unsubstantiated dogma....When SCIENCE fact and rationality fails,it comes down to..'faith'.>>>well we almost agree...you just trust what you were taught/told as a child...

and believed faithfully in a theory...till it became your own version of logic...till IT..became your life philosophy..[thus clearly have not a single..real science fact to solidify the evolution of genus..to back either your philosophy of evolution of genus/nor abiogenus..to wit life from non life..[rather for your belief/dogma]..

that meets the science nessesity of faulsify-ability..[ie that fact that if refuted collapses the science THEORY]...thus your dependance on evolvoltions phylosophies..and buzz words[spin]...in lue of faulsify-able science fact

dan, the circularity of your logic is a thing of beauty.