Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Ryft]

Creationists should not be surprised when rational people think they are fucking fools.

If I may launch off Minimalist's statement here to interject that "creationist" and "young-earth creationist" are not the same thing. I am watching several members here make all manner of disparaging remarks against "creationist" arguments which are clearly meant for young-earth creationists (according to the context). If one examines the relevant literature, both theological and scientific, one is likely to discover that young-earth creationism is a minority view among a host of old-earth creationist views (e.g., Intelligent Design, Gap Creation, Progressive Creation, etc.); it seems disingenuous to generalize a term with its minority view. Quite frankly, there is nothing 'irrational' about creationism in itself.

If I told you what I really thought of you I'd get a nasty PM from Adrian because this board makes a virtue out of tolerating abject stupidity under the guise of 'tolerance.'

I've been chuckling over that bit for several minutes now.

---

---

Here is a common structure that indicates a common ancestry—DNA.

It also indicates common design; i.e., DNA does not by itself settle the dispute between evolution and creation. Frankly, "DNA as master blueprint" is a feature of creation theories, too—particularly those of Intelligent Design proponents. To settle the dispute between evolution and creation one must argue beyond DNA by itself, since it's an important feature of both sides.

Given a more "pure genome"? This sounds a lot like you believe that it takes racial purity to live a long life such as that which allegedly occurred in the Bible. Wow, you and Adolf no doubt could have been great friends.

Dude, seriously? Godwin's Law, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." I'm disappointed that you were the first.

Dude, that is the definition of faith as recognized by nearly everyone but you and your podunk tribe of creationists.

That is NOT how faith is defined or used in biblical Christianity, which was his point (and includes far more than young-earth creationists). Feel free to review my discussion on the definition of faith,
beginning here, which strongly defends this argument.

---

---

The mountains (including Everest) that were formed by plate tectonics would have been formed during the Flood-year. These mountains would have pushed the waters back into the oceans, never to return again, which is what is described in the Bible.

Are you familiar with young-earth creationist John Baumgardner (who holds degrees in geophysics)? He proposes geophysical processes like what you described here, suggesting that rapid subduction of the oceanic plates caused the Flood and accomplished all the continental drift within a few years. However, he also recognizes that such catastrophic geophysical activity would generate an inordinate amount of energy in the form of heat, enough to boil most of the oceans and melt the earth's rocks. These theories sound good on the surface. However, if one starts testing them scientifically, it's soon realized they nullify the very Flood they're supposed to support—as even young-earth creationists like Baumgardner, Austin, Vardiman, Humphreys, Snelling, etc. are forced to admit.

See: Baumgardner, J. R. (1990). 3D finite element simulation of the global tectonic changes accompanying Noah's Flood, in Walsh, R. E., Brooks, C. L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2. Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship; pp. 35-45. See also: Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J. R., Humphreys, D. R., Snelling, A. A., Vardiman, L., Wise, K. P. (1994). Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global flood model of earth history, in Walsh, R. E. (ed.) The Third International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship; pp. 609-622.

I have already pointed out that creation guys have been published in numerous journals on both sides of the aisle.

Certainly—for example, geologist Andrew A. Snelling. However, please notice something very interesting. In his creation articles, he never mentions his geological work that argues for an earth that is billions of years old, and in his scientific articles on geology in peer-reviewed journals he never mentions his geological theories for a young earth. He is published on both sides because he plays both sides, never telling the one about the other.

---

---

Isn't polar shift linked to climate change?

Other way around, methinks. Polar shifts are related to changes in the core and mantle, not changes in climate.

---

---

The fossils are evidence of a global Flood, but those who refuse to believe in the Flood interpret them as evidence of evolution.

No, fossils are evidence of mass extinction level events. A global Flood is simply proposed as such an event—one that suffers from insurmountable scientific problems.

---

---

How are fossils somehow 'evidence' of a global flood? Please provide ONE reputable scientific source that posits this as a possibility.

I submit respectfully that it does not even have to be a "reputable" scientific source. He needs only to provide scientific evidence, period. Who cares what source it comes from. It would be nice to just see that evidence at all.