Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Ryft]

Wrong again. The point is well-made about all creationism, since there is nothing rational about it, period.

This is going to be fun. Given that 'rational' is about conforming to the logical principles of validity and consistency and 'creationism' is about the universe being a creation of God, please explain how "there is nothing rational about [creationism], period."

The thread absolutely IS about science.

It is not, however, about "whether or not any creationism is properly scientific," I said. As you somewhat recognized, it is about Statler and his views, which consist of a highly specified young-earth creationism based more on Scripture than anything else—not creationism in a general sense. And his views are being roundly criticized—rightly so—for their irrationality, never mind their lack of scientific integrity and merit, and my point was to distance creationism generally from his distinct young-earth subset thereof. While people might consider his ilk as "fucking fools" (e.g., Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, Russell Humphreys, etc.), they do not necessarily think that of all creationists—for example, Ronald Fisher, Theodore Dobzhansky, Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Randall Isaac, etc. (evolutionary creationism) or Russel Mixter, Fazale Rana, Jeffrey Zweerink, David Rogstad, etc. (progressive creationism) are not characterized with such invective.

Not all creationists are as scientifically incoherent or illiterate as the young-earth subset tends to be. Let Statler regale us with his account of dinosaurs (but don't hold your breath); however, as some of the names above should indicate (e.g., Dobzhansky), there is no shortage of creationists whose account of dinosaurs would probably mirror yours very closely, if not identically, and who are at least as passionate about science as you are and would not recognize your accusation that creationism is opposed to established science. While I understand the disparaging invective against young-earth creationists, those "radical evangelicals" who feel "that the findings of science ... [are] contrary to their religious dogma," I want to ensure that people are not broad-brushing all creationists generally; there are many creationists that rational people do not think are fucking fools.

Sorry, diversion ain't gonna work. You don't have to take what I said on faith. All you have to do is get a real science education, and actually understand what they are teaching you. My post also fully addressed your response. Try addressing my point.

Except that both "ipse dixit" and "non-sequitur" were not diversions, but logical critiques; namely, it was this skeptic's way of saying, "Your response was rationally bankrupt, such that naked assertions and orphaned conclusions are without logical merit. Please try again." Incidentally, groundless personal attacks on my level of education also lack logical merit. You are not doing yourself any favours here.

Not really. Godwin's law also states that invoking ole Adolf usually spells the end of a thread. Looks like it's still going to me.

Uh, no. That is a corollary to Godwin's law, not the law itself; the specific corollary here being, "If someone brings up Nazis [or Hitler] in general conversation when it was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult, the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating." I noted that your comment proved Godwin's law, nothing more. You can explore its corollaries if you like or dig your heels in further about whatever point you're trying to make here, but it will have to be with someone else because it all goes beyond my point and I have no interest in it.

Revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one person's revelation over another. Anecdotal evidence is not accepted science. ... Science is empircal in nature, using inductive reasoning. Religion is not. Creationism is a sham promoted by people who believe The Flintstones is a documentary. [snip rest]

None of which has anything to do with what I said. The definition of faith I defended in that thread had nothing to do with converting someone, the nature of science and religion, or creationism. I find it curious that you have demonstrated such a propensity for red herrings in so brief an exchange.