DR. ALAN WARD, Texan Vet

Flange Desire said:
But what is to be gained from such a top ten list of biblical predictions?
Or a top ten list of predictions devined from the back of my corn flakes packet?

Such a list would have no value other than generating noise.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. If this list is a prediction of events that will happen in the future (making it a true prediction), then who cares if it is from the bible or from the back of a corn flakes packet?

This would be a case where the claimnant is saying "I am able to predict future events." After defining what is a successful prediction, the claimnant need also define what the success rate will be. If these are truly specific predictions, including the year, then getting all ten right would easily be eligible for the million, IMO.

OTOH, if this is a list of "predictions that have already come true" then that is different, and uninteresting. You can find a lot of these even in things like nursery rhymes, if you try hard enough. However, the only real test of a predictive model is to predict things that have not yet happened. Statisticians understand this. Given sufficient parameters, I can create a mathematical model to perfectly describe any set of data, even a totally random set. However, the real test for a _predictive_ model is to see what happens with data that are to come. Do they follow the model? If yes, then you have a predictive model. If not, you just have a meaningless mathematical expression.
 
You guys who are calling on Dr. Ward to predict something are missing the point: he didn't come here to prove anything or to predict anything, or even to try to win the million dollars. He came in here with his mind already made up, that Randi was an Evil Secular Unbeliever, and all he came in here for was to go, "Hah! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!" at him. And then he left.

And I very much doubt if he's coming back. He feels he's made his point in some obscure way, and he will reside comfortable in his "triumph" to the rest of his days.

Some people just don't "get it", and there's really no point in asking them to substantiate their claim by predicting something, because they're not making a claim that they're capable of verbalizing well enough to even explain it, let alone implement it somehow with a prediction or something.

BTW, he's a real vet, in case anybody wondered. And--surprise, surprise!--he's a "holistic" vet.

http://www.dogpack.com/directory/DFWHolisticVets.html
Alan Ward, DVM

Web Site: Unknown
Phone: 972-422-5116
Clinic/Address: Plano Animal Clinic, 3205 Alma Drive, Suite 415, Plano, TX, 75075
Modalities Practiced: Conventional Medicine, Nutrition, Immuno Augmentative Therapy, Veterinary Orthopedic Manipulation
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a homepathic vet from Florida in here a while ago, too?
 
Goshawk: While it certainly seems that Dr Ward was not making an honest attempt at the challenge, he did present himself to the challenge. We should, at least, respond as if we thought he was serious.

The fact that the calls for examples of these predictions was not heard shows the lack of seriousness. If we just dismiss him out of hand, though, don't we risk looking as silly as he now looks?

I mean: either we, as skeptics, take this challenge seriously or we don't.

pgwenthold: A record of past predictions would be interesting.

Consider you case. Imagine that someone produces a list of clear predictions for future events. They all come true in the next week. That would, according to your statement, be interesting. OK - after the week is up, every one of these predictions is now in the past. Do you suddenly lose interest because of this?

I suspect not.

A record of successful predictions made in the past would be interesting. Especially as the proponent claims they are unambiguous. I'd be interested to see what these entail.

Some, like the prediction that the Son of God will arrive on an ass and a colt, will not really count as the Bible makes it clear that the person fulfilling the prediction (Jesus) knows about it and engineered the events to comply.

But this wasn't the kind reprsented.

A record stating the Charles Darwin will write the Origin of the Species (being represented as a great disaster I note) long before he even thought of it would be borderline - since darwin did his doctorate in divinity and would be very familiar with the bible. Imagine his surprise: "My word! That's me!!!" Then later: "Origin of the Species? Hmmm... a catchy title..." Perhaps the biblical predictions about him are the reason he accepted the post of "companion to the captain" on the Beagle - surprising everyone as he'd had no apparent desire to adventure at all previously. Maybe he delayed submitting his book for publication for so long soas to conform to the prediction?

Actually - all this points out one problem with Bible predictions. The book is just too widely read. Any non-ambiguous prediction could be deliberately fulfilled by someone who read it and thought: "Ahah!" (Or - more lazily - reinterprets their life story to conform... qv. Baha Ullah.)

But you see the point: a historical list of predictions fulfilled would be a prima-facae case.

OTOH: it is very difficult to imaging the Bible (KJ no less) yeilding this sort of evidence.
 
Simon Bridge said:
pgwenthold: A record of past predictions would be interesting.
Click to expand...

Only if the supposed "predictions" were identified before the events occured.



Consider you case. Imagine that someone produces a list of clear predictions for future events. They all come true in the next week. That would, according to your statement, be interesting. OK - after the week is up, every one of these predictions is now in the past. Do you suddenly lose interest because of this?
Click to expand...

Of course not, because the predictions were actually made before the events occured.

But this is a big confusion on his part. He claims that the bible predicts X, Y, and Z. This is clearly not true. What is true is that HE predicts X, Y, and Z based on what he reads in the bible.

But you see the point: a historical list of predictions fulfilled would be a prima-facae case.
Click to expand...

It depends. A list of open-ended vague predictions wouldn't be evidence of squat. In fact, one of the important things you need to define to do the test correctly is how to avoid multiple endpoints, which is the biggest problem in all of this.

But it doesn't matter. Even if you had a prima-facae case, the correct approach is to turn around and require a prediction of something that hasn't happened yet. Thus, even if we had a list of "this is what I predicted for last week, and it all came true," the correct test is to say, fine, now tell me something that will happen next week?

OTOH, I agree with your comment on the bible, and add this: A big problem we have with the bible is that we know when predictions DO get to be specific, they fail. For example, at least one of the apostles was supposed to be alive for the second coming (still roaming the earth, apparently), and Tyre was going to be laid waste and never rebuilt. Both blatently wrong.
 
pgwenthold said:
For example, at least one of the apostles was supposed to be alive for the second coming (still roaming the earth, apparently)
Click to expand...
[derail]

I have been told that Mormons believe that one of the apostles - I think it is John - is still alive.

I was told this by a Mormon. He said that history notes the death of every apostle except that one.

[/derail]
 
pgwenthold said:
Only if the supposed "predictions" were identified before the events occured.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

But this is a big confusion on his part. He claims that the bible predicts X, Y, and Z. This is clearly not true. What is true is that HE predicts X, Y, and Z based on what he reads in the bible.
Click to expand...
hat is what you suspect is the case. It is also what is usually the case when someone makes similar claims. However, without an example we cannot know that this applies here.

Of course, without further evidence, we are forgiven for going with this "most likely" scenario.

It depends. A list of open-ended vague predictions wouldn't be evidence of squat. In fact, one of the important things you need to define to do the test correctly is how to avoid multiple endpoints, which is the biggest problem in all of this.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. And without examples we cannot tell for certain.

But it doesn't matter. Even if you had a prima-facae case, the correct approach is to turn around and require a prediction of something that hasn't happened yet. Thus, even if we had a list of "this is what I predicted for last week, and it all came true," the correct test is to say, fine, now tell me something that will happen next week?
Click to expand...
This would be endless - you are saying that if I predicted something that happened next week, and it happened, you still wouldn't accept it because it's already happened?

OTOH, I agree with your comment on the bible, and add this: A big problem we have with the bible is that we know when predictions DO get to be specific, they fail. For example, at least one of the apostles was supposed to be alive for the second coming (still roaming the earth, apparently), and Tyre was going to be laid waste and never rebuilt. Both blatently wrong.
Click to expand...
I have a thread about false prophets in this forum. Would you like to stick that, along with chapter and verse, in there?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49999
 
Simon Bridge said:
This would be endless - you are saying that if I predicted something that happened next week, and it happened, you still wouldn't accept it because it's already happened?
Click to expand...

Let's say you make a series of (notarized?) predictions on paper like this:

- I predict it will rain in Chicago, Il on Monday.

- I predict it will not rain in Chicago, Il on Monday.

Then on Monday, you grab all the correct ones and display your "proof" of precognitive abilities. Amazing! :rolleyes:

The point is, your FULL prediction must be known (and clear) before the event. That way, its accuracy can be distinctly measured.

While it might be tempting to encourage "keeping an open mind", the fallacy of this claim was clear. He made very specific references to events that are known not to be mentioned in the bible (there are plenty of searchable bibles online to quickly confirm this for yourself). Therefore, his claim must require some subjective interpretation, ergo, it is not eligable for the challenge since subjective measures are disqualified. So while it may have been entertaining to ask him to point out such passages, and reply "Nope, that passage doesn't mention Roe vs Wade at all, you lose", it really would not have accomplished anything.
 
Simon Bridge said:
This would be endless - you are saying that if I predicted something that happened next week, and it happened, you still wouldn't accept it because it's already happened?
Click to expand...

What do you mean "accept it"?

Would it pass the JREF challenge? If you just handed a list of predictions and claimed successes, no it wouldn't. You would have to establish that they were predictions made before the fact and that they were sufficiently specific such that the probability of them being fulfilled was adequately small. That means that they can't have multiple endpoints, because that makes the probability of success basically unknowable.

Of course, this is even assuming that there is a list of predictions. However, in this case, with the bible, there aren't even any real predictions, just someone's assertion that they are predictions. Thus, it's not a test of the bible, it's a test of the person, making the bible no more relevent than a box of corn flakes. If you can predict the future, it doesn't matter if you use the bible, corn flake boxes, or a crystal ball.
 
pgwenthold said:
If you can predict the future, it doesn't matter if you use the bible, corn flake boxes, or a crystal ball.
Click to expand...

My cornflake box predicts that I will lose weight if I carry on eating it as part of a healthy lifestyle ;)

The contents of the box, obviously. Not the box. Although the box is probably also low in calories.
 
drfrank said:
My cornflake box predicts that I will lose weight if I carry on eating it as part of a healthy lifestyle ;)

The contents of the box, obviously. Not the box. Although the box is probably also low in calories.
Click to expand...

And high in fiber too!
 
drfrank said:
My cornflake box predicts that I will lose weight if I carry on eating it as part of a healthy lifestyle ;)

The contents of the box, obviously. Not the box. Although the box is probably also low in calories.
Click to expand...

They do not mention that you can lose weight if you have a healthy lifestyle even without eating cornflakes. Assuming of course you are overweight.

Depending on the brand of cornflakes the box may be healthier than the cornflakes
 
rjh01 said:
They do not mention that you can lose weight if you have a healthy lifestyle even without eating cornflakes. Assuming of course you are overweight.
Click to expand...

lol yes, I always love those disclaimers:

"You too can lose weight if you eat new New Lard-o-flakes(tm) as part of a rigourous exercise regime"
 
CynicalSkeptic said:
holy timewarp, batman. One year thread resurections always throw me for a loop.
Click to expand...

My bad. Someone made a comment that I win TLA too often and I found this one and saw "January" and went "oh. that's interesting."



I should have checked year.
 
fowlsound said:
My bad. Someone made a comment that I win TLA too often and I found this one and saw "January" and went "oh. that's interesting."



I should have checked year.
Click to expand...

Do you agree that you win TLA too often, fowlsound? Too often probably means "undeserved", "totally undeserved" ot "not really deserved", right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom