Tell us about the dinosaurs

[downbeatplumb]

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

[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.

[Tiberius]

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.

If we're going to be technical about it, fossils are evidence that a creature existed, and died. Not all fossils are from mass extinction level events.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[thesummerqueen]

Creationism is a sham promoted by people who believe the Flintstones is a documentary.

And fossils are simply traps laid by a Wile E. Coyote-esque devil to confuse our tiny brains?

Sorry, I do not have the science know-how to effectively add to this discussion, just wanted to say you're my hero at this point.

[Dotard]

Sorry, I do not have the science know-how to effectively add to this discussion, just wanted to say you're my hero at this point.

[orogenicman]

Creationism is a sham promoted by people who believe the Flintstones is a documentary.

And fossils are simply traps laid by a Wile E. Coyote-esque devil to confuse our tiny brains?

Sorry, I do not have the science know-how to effectively add to this discussion, just wanted to say you're my hero at this point.

[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.