Only an ignorant person would not change their mind when presented with a logical and reasonable positions, littered with objective evidence, against their arguments. Once one encounters such a person, it's best to leave them to their ignorance, I've found.
As wonderful as that world would be, I don't think it is realistic. This study dealt with reasonable individuals and strong evidence and still the opinions became polarized.
p.s. I think the word "ignorant" is a poor word choice. An ignorant person is one lacking training or knowledge. But I understood what you meant.
Only if one holds to the position that they have infallible information to counter you with. There is no defensive measure they should retreat to when one is simply trying to educate that person.
Their defensive measures are indicative of a weak position, it shows lack of confidence in their argument and usually takes any discussion into a childish debate.
Defensive measures and childish name calling is not limited to the creationist side on these forums.
Faith cannot be contested against. Your point is moot if one is simply going to "challenge" science with their subjective beliefs.
What would be the point of allowing such an argument to be presented?
Not to mention the lowering of scientific standards that would have to take place for such metaphysical hypothesis to be given an open forum for scientific discussion.
So why bother? If I remember from a previous exchange, we differ on important points and I have no wish to convince you over to "my side." I'm just looking to bounce ideas around and enjoy the discussion. I reiterate my opinion. If you're here to convince others that you are right and they are wrong, you're wasting your time. It's highly unlikely that it will happen.