Tell us about the dinosaurs

[orogenicman]

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.

Whether young-Earth Creationism represents the minority view among Creatyionists is irrelevant. All are making an untestable argument, and as such, cannot claim to be scientific.

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.

No, actually it doesn't. The argument from design was put to rest over 80 years ago. Let it go already. DNA does, in fact, settle the despute between Creationism and evolution, since the only argument that Creationism can make with regard to anything is that "God did it". And that, my friend, simply doesn't explain anything, much less the Genetic code.

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.

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.

Seriously. I am well aware of Godwin's law. From Wikipedia:

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

I can argue that when one starts discussing racial purity as a mechanism within a creationist argument, a comparison with Nazi propaganda becomes completely appropriate. Why? For the simple fact that Homo Sapiens, genetically, is already a remarkably homogenous. There is very little genetic difference between the races. The Nazi's didn't know, or didn't believe this, and neither, apparently, does our friend, Statler. Now, you can argue about the bluntness of that statement, but comparison is valid.

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.

I read your post, which is as follows:

Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

None of which refutes my statement that faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof.

1) Outside of what the Bible tells you, you cannot prove that Christ died for our sins (non-Notitia). You take it on faith.

2) Similarly, you take it on faith that because you believe that Christ died for our sins even though you cannot prove it. All you have is a few pages in a 2,000 year old book of questionable authoship, written long after Christ allegedly lived. And for you that is enough. But it doesn't prove anything. It's another act of faith, a belief in something that cannot be proven.

3) You are deeply commited to trust in Christ because y9ou believe #2 to be true, though you still cannot prove it.

And so, my friend, what you have spelled out is simply another way of saying exactly what I said in the first place.

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.

You may think he is playing both sides, but my side (I'm a geologist) is very aware of what he is doing, and most do not approve.

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.

I believe he may be referring to the Milankovitch cycles.

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.

In fact, the bulk of our fossil evidence consists of marine fossils, and the vast majority of those are not the result of a mass extinction in a strict sense of the term. For instance, coral reefs continually renew themselves. They build upon generation after generation of reef species over a period of tens of thousands of years. The Devonian fossil reef at the Falls of The Ohio River are a prime example. Do disasters ever occur? Certainly. Do hurricanes exist?

---

Wow... this is still going? Amazing.

I know, right? I keep thinking I'll unsubscribe from the thread, but it's like watching a trainwreck.

I've discovered that you can argue any old shit if you just say 'well maybe...' and insert an implausable explanation, State youve used logic and then claim victory.


To get back on subject I went to debate on creationism v evolution where the creationist was a chemist from southampton university.

Turns out he knew shit all about biology.

He was the same idiot who runs the creationist museum in portsmouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfWvniBYscQ

Well, none of that (what was in the video) was correct.