Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Ryft]

Whether young-earth creationism represents the minority view among creationists is irrelevant [because] all are making an untestable argument, and as such, cannot claim to be scientific.

The point was rationality, not science (compare Minimalist's point about "rational people" thinking that creationists are "fucking fools," in addition to the overall tenor of this thread about the creationists here being wholly incapable of arguing rationally, much less scientifically). Science is important, but reason is even more fundamental and they cannot satisfy either. The point is well-made with respect to young-earth creationists, but not creationists generally. Moreover, this thread has nothing to do with whether or not any creationism is properly scientific, making that a red herring.

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 dispute 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.

You move from ipse dixit to non-sequitur. Speaking of rational...

I can argue that when one starts discussing [genetic] purity as a mechanism within a creationist argument, a comparison with Nazi propaganda becomes completely appropriate.

I'm sorry, who said your invoking Hitler was inappropriate? Your comment to Statler Waldorf proved Godwin's Law, pure and simple.

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

So my inability to prove something to you means that nothing was proven to me? That simply does not follow. Since the conclusion "there is no proof" follows only when some criteria for proof has not been satisfied by anything, your statement must be the product of one of two delusions: that everyone adheres to the exact same criteria for proof, or that the criteria for proof you adhere to is the only correct one. Insofar as faith involves being persuaded of the truthfulness of X, it is based on a proof. Is it proof according to the criteria you adhere to? Probably not—but quite frankly, so what?

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.

Point conceded (and Adrian's point, too).