Tell us about the dinosaurs

[orogenicman]

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.

Wrong again. The point is well-made about all creationism, since there is nothing rational about it, period. Secondly, the thread absolutely IS about science. The title is "Tell us about Dinosaurs". The point of the thread was to get Statler to express his "scientific" view about the dinosaurs.

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...

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.

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.

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

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?

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. Farmer Bob in Nebraska may be the most honest, God-fearing man anyone has ever known, but we still need physical evidence that a UFO (or the Virgin Mary) appeared in his corn field. 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.

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?

Science, all science, does adhere to the same criteria as set forth in the scientific method. Creationism doesn't do that. It begins with a unprovable premise (God did it), and then proceeds to built a very unscientific "theory" around it. The so-what is the issue of who has to prove what to whom. It rests not on science to prove that God does or does not exist; that responsibility rests with theists. But creationism isn't really about proving that God exists (it can't be proved anyway, otherwise, what is the point of faith?). The goal of creationism is anti-established science. It has been from it's very inception. It's a goal more recent radical evangelicals reincarnated because they feel that the findings of science, which are accepted by the vast majority of the world's scientists is contrary to their religious dogma. They are still living in the early 18th century, which in truth, wouldn't be so bad if it involved the enlightenment portion of 18th century thinking, but it's not.

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).

Concession accepted.