Summations Only

I'm sure many murderers are convicted for murders that were not observed by anyone other than the murderer. But murders leave behind evidence (blood, fingerprints, hair, etc.), and that evidence has eyewitnesses, and the experiments conducted on the evidence have eyewitnesses, and the data produced by the experiments has eyewitnesses. In fact, the observed tendency is for evangelical juries in states like Texas and Alabama to convict more easily in the absence of eyewitness testimony. Evangelicals seem to place a greater reliance upon this evidence you denigrate to a greater extent than any other group.Evidence is just formal information gathering. How are you to know anything without information? Is there anything you know that didn't come to you through information presented to your senses?We all learn what we know from evidence presented to us from our surroundings. The richest sources of information are other people, but we gather information from everything around us. And when you formalize this information gathering process you have evidence.--Percy

If you don't know why the moon is round, you could save yourself embarrassment by not making stuff up.Or by being indifferent to making a fool of yourself in public, so I guess you're good. In what strange fantasy world could the existence of a people, group, city or custom contradict evolutionary beliefs?

Percy, what is your source for this allegation?

That's an inappropriate relationship to evidence, and most importantly, an insupportable one. Evidence is convincing precisely because it's apparent both to those who want to see it, and those who don't. Imagine a private detective holding out photos to a woman of her cheating husband - whether or not she wants to see them, they're devastating simply because they're such convincing proof of infidelity. And regardless of whether the woman refuses to look at them, the evidence will continue to mount, to a point where it just can't be ignored. Human beings can't help but see what is real, even if its to their detriment. Pretending that the evidence isn't evidence just isn't a pose that can be maintained. I'm not familiar with any model of the moon's origin that involves an "explosion." You mean like these? Some details, yes. Other details are contradicted. Both are irrelevant to evolution, or to the veracity of the Bible in regards to its other claims; Verona is a real city in Italy (I've been there) but it's mention doesn't make Romeo and Juliet any less a work of fiction. All that science does is make efforts to explain what has been observed.

People have in fact started threads along these lines.If, for example, you want to know why I am an atheist, you will find my explanation here.

Well, this line of reasoning would lead someone who actually understood the evidence for evolution, cosmology, physics and/or chemistry away from at least the literalistic version of the God of the Bible.

I looked at your ex-Christian testimonials. Most of them don't mention science, but that seems to be because they are far more consumed with a hatred of the word of God. These didn't take too long to find however, and I'm sure there are many similar ones;

quote:

---

The more I learned about the scientific explanations for the origin of the planets and the diversity of life, I was more sure that there was no need for a supernatural explanation.

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/.../49030-my-journey-to-unbelief

quote:

---

The first cracks in my Christian foundation started to appear my freshman year, when, as a science major, I took a class entitled the "Evolution of Biodiversity".

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/...om-the-shores-of-christianity

quote:

---

Once I was no longer under the influence of drugs, I marvelled at the use of my brain again. At that point I started doing research in many different scientific areas out of my own interest, one of which was Evolution. I was awe struck at how much sense it made to me, everything was proven and calculated by science. This led me to read the book The God Delusion. From that point on I was 100% I was an Atheist,

---

(A reference to a book that is on my list. Probably safe to say he isn't the only one at that forum who didn't have a serious issue with the influence of drugs)http://www.ex-christian.net/...-from-christianity-to-atheism

quote:

---

One thing that struck me was something that our saintly old teacher said regarding Genesis. She said that we should study genesis well, as it was "...the hinge-pin of Christianity... With no original sin, there was no need for a saviour. The journey started by Adam was completed by the second Adam, Jesus." This was the first time I'd had my faith directly challenged. I'd always thought Genesis was an allegory, but I hadn't considered how important it was to the need for Christ. No original sin, no saviour. I believed in Jesus, therefore Genesis must be true!

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/...525-my-own-deconversion-storyHe "always thought Genesis was an allegory" Something that is clear throughout those testimonies is the fact that so many of them weren't converted to atheism from Biblical Christianity, they were converted from some form of Christian compromise with science/evolution. Evidenced in the the following two examples as well.

quote:

---

At the same time, I was beginning my very first romance with the man who is now my husband. He was an agnostic and we would often have discussions about evolution and creation (luckily I wasn’t a young-Earth creationist), god’s existence and influence on our lives, and other philosophical points. His arguments for evolution began to make more and more sense, and creationism make less and less. I held on for awhile, calling myself a theistic evolutionist, but eventually even that fell away. When I ceased to believe in creation altogether, the rest of my faith began to die, as well.

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/46127-slip-sliding-away/"Luckily I wasn't a young-Earth creationist" - she wouldn't have been as easy to convert to atheism if she was.

quote:

---

College was what really opened my eyes. Even though I went to a Southern Baptist college (and got a degree in church music!) I was free to study things on my own, and there were a few professors at the school who were much more open-minded than anyone I'd come across in my life. One was an evolutionist, even!

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/42011-the-atheist-minister

quote:

---

About 8 or 9 months ago, I learned about the great Dr. Sagan. I've always been a big fan of science and new and interesting ideas.

---

http://www.ex-christian.net/...21-to-make-a-long-story-short_________________It's important however, to look at the four key paragraphs from my earlier Wintery Night link that you hand-waved away.

quote:

---

1) They want to do something immoral with impunity. This type of person wants to do something immoral that is forbidden by Christianity, like pre-marital sex. They dump Christianity in order to feel better about seeking happiness in this life, apart from God and his moral duties.

---

You don't really expect anyone in those testimonials to admit this do you? It's much easier to mock Christianity and Christians than to admit to things such as these.

quote:

---

2) They want to pursue happiness in irresponsible ways. This type of person thinks that God’s job is to save them when they act irresponsibly while pursuing happiness. When God disappoints them by not giving them what they want in order to be happy, they leave the faith.

---

Those testimonials are loaded with evidence of that.

quote:

---

3) They want to be loved by people, not by God. This type of person thinks that Christianity is a tool that they can use to become popular. When they first try to articulate the gospel in public, they find that people don’t like them as much, and they feel bad about offending people with exclusive truth claims that they cannot back up using logic and evidence. So, they water down Christianity to get along with atheists, liberal Christians and other religions. Finally, they jettison Christianity completely and focus on making everyone feel good about whatever they believe.

---

Again, obvious in those testimonials. "They want to be loved by people" - plenty of mushiness in those testimonials (and responses to them) to vouch for that.

quote:

---

4) They don’t want to learn to defend their faith. This type of person is asked questions by skeptics that they cannot answer. Usually this happens when people go to university after growing up in the shelter of the Church. The questions and peer pressure make them feel stupid. Rather than investigate Christianity to see if it’s true and to prepare to defend it in public, they dump it so they can be thought of as part of the smart crowd.

---

Again, obvious.My position is also clear.

It’s always MANY other posters, it’s always a shouting down process. It’s a sign of insecurity, an indication that other like minded posters messages may not be complete enough. To be fair, I’m sure the same thing happens at creationist boards as well. (I don’t participate in those — I have no desire to be part of a gang.) Most all forums are naturally one sided, and the shouting down process contributes to making them that way. Unfortunately for all those majorities, they’re not smarter, superior, more educated, making more progress etc. They just enjoy the sport of shouting down, of making a minority disengage, to feel a victory.By the way, I seem to remember your leaving political discussions pretty quickly. Are (the few) atheist conservatives different from creationists concerning how they react when shouted down? No, I’m saying that much of what science claims is in perfect harmony with atheistic beliefs, and the evidence presented isn’t always objective enough to convince all non atheists. Exactly, if your belief says evolution and atheism have no relationship with each other, evidence doesn’t matter. Ask dwise1.

I think something that stands the test of time, particularly with fierce opposition for that entire time, makes it more substantial as evidence. Mormonism isn’t even in the same league with Christ’s resurrection, or the 66 book Bible. Disagree - if there’s more than one time dimension and three space dimensions, there’s no way science could find any evidence for it, because it’s beyond human comprehension. That’s what the scientific community has constantly claimed as it has shouted down the concept of Intelligent Design. If the origins of life, or origins of the universe are actually the result of something beyond one time dimension and three space dimensions, the scientific community proves its dogmatism by by-passing that possibility by studying and philosophizing about things like the big bang and abiogeneis. Not just ignoring the possibility of more than one time and three space dimensions, but bypassing those possibilities. It’s nothing but atheism. I don’t think I denigrated it, I just clarified its significance by showing its subjectivity, the fact that it can be strong or weak, and swayed in its strength and weakness by biased worldviews. That sounds good, until we realize the imperfection of human endeavors. In the late 60’s, early 70’s there was a pretty sizable scientific scare about population explosion. Predictions of mass starvation and many other terrible consequences by the turn of the century if government wasn’t permitted to grow enough to control the masses. It was largely spearheaded by a young biology professor named Paul R. Ehrlich from Stanford University. In the words of author Pamela Winnick; Few in the scientific-intellectual community or in the media challenged Ehrlich’s claims or the coercive methods he suggested. Those who did were treated like heretics. He was eventually exposed, but it took too long, and no one can say that the propaganda he polluted many peoples’ minds with was completely erased. Just like no one can say that the 40 year existence of the Piltdown man hoax didn’t do irreversible damage.Central to Christianity is the mistrust of human wisdom. From thousands of years ago to today, it's not hard to find its blunders. Differently believing? Concerning Christianity, they vary somewhat on very minor things like worship/behavior procedures, but the central theme is always the same. Just like the central theme among scientific communities is always naturalism and nothing else. The scientific communities are greatly divided concerning lots of things, including how much force should be used to eradicate religion.

What can make it subjective is the reason that the information is being gathered, why the gathering process only follows certain paths. If a conclusion is reached, such as an intellectually fulfilled atheistic worldview needs several billion years to work and tons of research money is available to prove the earth to be billions of years old, what are the chances that a lot of information will be gathered about it. I’m really busy with my normal, routine life, but for only a few million dollars, I could change some priorities, and gather enough information to show the close relationship evolution has with atheism to make dwise1 blush. So obviously, motives, money, human imperfection, and many other unfortunate things largely determine what evidence will be gathered and presented as the scientific community seeks political influence and public involvement.

The word evidence can have variation — it can be strong evidence, or it can be weak evidence. The pictures you describe could be strong, unless someone educated in photo-shopping took out his magnifying glass and said uh-oh. The problem all humans have, religious or not, is that they come to a conclusion first, then work backwards to try to find evidence for it. That’s the reason dwise1 is so angry at my references to the cozy relationship that evolution and atheism has. That book list, however strong, isn’t the only evidence there is for that fact.

Considering what they had suffered through at the hands of their fundamentalist communities in the name of that "word of God", then any anger or hatred they may feel towards it would be perfectly understandable. After all, fundamentalists produce some of the most anti-Christianity atheists and for very good reason.Now, let's see what you chose: That quote came far down-stream of what had caused Reason Quest to start to deconvert. After having recounted his conversion at age 6, baptism in junior high, and after most of a life-time in an evangelical church:

quote:

---

Where the doubting started:

​

About the time when Intelligent Design was in the news with the whole Dover trial, someone presented a class on the subject. Now I remember going over evolution in high school, but never really had a problem with it or thought about it much. I was never really a strict Bible literalist. Among my friends from my youth, the talk was along the lines of God could have used evolution, and a day to God in the bible could have been many days in our time.
But, the class got me to start thinking about evolution, and kind of put off by the strong opposition to it in the church.

​

On a trip to Washington DC we visited the Natural History museum. There was an exhibit showing the skeletons of many species. Just looking at that was kind of my Ah Ha moment. The skeletons of all these different species were so similar. It just makes sense that they are related.

​

That made me hungry to learn more about evolution and what it really said. I read lots of books and watched videos online.

---

It was Intelligent Design that had gotten him started doubting. He could tell that something was wrong about it and it bothered him, so he sought to learn more, in keeping with his self-description from college ("I always have been a thinker, who wants to understand people and why they do what they do.") Since ID was attacking evolution and everybody was siding against evolution, he wanted to see what it was actually about. Of course, you would have wanted him to embrace ignorance instead of seeking the truth.Just to remind you, it wasn't evolution that got him started doubting, but rather Intelligent Design, which in the churches is just a front for "creation science." Again, you quote-mined instead of having read the testimonial. At the point that you pulled out of context, marmot grew up in a strict Christian family, but one which took a more intellectual approach to their faith. And he had not been exposed to "creation science":

quote:

---

The first cracks in my Christian foundation started to appear my freshman year, when, as a science major, I took a class entitled the "Evolution of Biodiversity". I had never really thought much about the whole evolution/creationism debate -- I can legitimately say I had really not thought about it much because my school did not teach evolution in my biology class, but they also did not teach creationism. I was an empty vessel...and the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution won me over to thinking that evolution was true. In order to reconcile this with my faith, I explained my theistic evolutionist viewpoint with the logic that "God and Science" are not mutually incompatible. I read a lot of books that made me feel better about that but this was my first real departure from popular Christian doctrine. It would play a role in the next major event in my life that caused those cracks to widen.

---

That next major event was as a counselor at a church camp when the camp director made up a really ludicrous story that was supposed to be how evolution works (there's a bit more to it, lurkers, so read it yourself). Then in senior year philosophy class "made {him} realize there was not a reasonable argument for the existence of God" while world religions class showed him that the Bible is not unique. Just as I told you, marc! It's not so much science that fundamentalism has to fear, but rather the humanities!But what really did the trick was his involvement in Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, whose goal is to proselytize to the student body, but which he found to be little more than a pyramid scheme. And it didn't help that he had also watched the film, "Jesus Camp", and was sickened by how they were blatantly brainwashing those young kids. For a long time, he gave up on Christians but not on Christianity, but he continued to drift away until a few months prior to his testimony when he realized that he could no longer believe in it. Gunvalk was raised in a fundamentalist Christian school, which was very likely what had screwed him up and made him more susceptible to drug abuse when he transfered to a public school. For example: "I asked Jesus to my savour again and again, out of fear not belief." That is a very common theme in other testimonials, the emotional and psychological strain that kids raised fundamentalist will go through as they are in constant fear of straying and of not being saved.Plus, he had been raised on "creation science" and on the fundamentalist teaching that evolution would turn him into an atheist, so the fact that it did is just the kind of self-fullfilling prophesy that I've been warning you about. But you left out the next line! The one where AaronOz converted at that point to bibilical literalism! Converting to the exact opposite that you describe:

quote:

---

I decided at this time that I'd never question the bible and I would accept it at face value.

---

How could you have possibly missed that? Unless you had decided to lie to us deliberately.But fortunately for AaronOz, he did eventually become saved, but it took a lot of pain to get there. After many years of being constantly battered emotionally and spiritually by his dysfunctional church, he and his wife eventually left and did not seek another church. Filled with questions that he struggled with, he felt all alone while his faith was crumbling around him. Then he found a video on YouTube, a deconversion testimonial. He discovered that he was not alone and that he was not the only one to ask those questions! And part of his conclusions:

quote:

---

Perhaps you think that I've taken the bible too literally. Well, yes, I have. That's what we're supposed to do. Isn't it the inerrant word of God? {But now} I disagree on that, I hold no more faith in it then I do in 'The Belgariad by David Eddings'. Both are masterful stories that inspired me throughout the years. But both are pure fantasy in my opinion.

---

But his having taken the Bible "too literally" (you would say, "not literally enough!") was very much part of what had set him up to lose his faith. Just as I've been telling you!And now he is saved! No more hate, no more fear. If Thalia had been a young-earth creationist, then it's doubtful that they would have been able to continue talking, given creationists' drive to make that impossible. But if she had been and she had listened to what he had to say about creationism, then she wouldn't have been slowly slip-sliding away, but rather it would have killed her faith very quickly. That is, after all, what you (pl) teach your kids to do: if you start to understand evolution, then you are required to become an atheist. You're the one who insists on teaching them those self-fullfilling prophesies, so stop your hypocrisy of blaming evolution for what you yourself are doing!My emphasis added:

quote:

---

When we moved to finish our bachelor’s degrees, going on to get our masters, we didn’t attend church at all, and most of my friends were non-religious, which helped my continued de-conversion. I made friends with atheists, homosexuals, people with tattoos . . . all the sorts of people I’d been raised to despise. I continued to learn that what I’d been taught as a child was wrong.

​

We moved again so I could work toward my doctorate, and we made one last attempt to go to church. The service we attended included a video arguing for young-earth creation, and neither of us could take it at all seriously. We haven’t been inside a church building since.

---

So, what we have is that she had been raised on lies -- just as I keep telling you that you are doing -- and realizing that just pushes her further and further away from Christianity (Baptist, BTW, since I'm sure you hadn't bothered to read that part either).And the effect that young-earth creationism has is to drive the normals away. Now that she's become a normal.BTW, her photo isn't of her, but rather of Summer Glau in the role of River Tam. And just what the hell does that have to do with anything! One professor in the Southern Baptist college was an "evolutionist" (whatever that's supposed to mean, given Christians' prediliction for blowing everything out of proportion). So tell us, so what? What did that have to do with TheSecretAtheist's deconversion? Absolutely nothing; read the rest of the testimonial instead of stopping as soon as you've found the "e-word"! TheSecretAtheist had simply grown out of Christianity, helped along by his studies in theology:

quote:

---

My studies in theology had led me to see that there was no truth to be found in Christianity.

---

So then, that means that you will now claim that theology causes people to become atheists? The proof is right here! seeboh is -- was, since this is from Dec 2010, two years ago -- 17 years old. A Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic high school. You people wouldn't even consider him to be a Christian ... or if so, then only by a technicality. And actually, his first exposure to Sagan was 8 or 9 months prior, whereas he had started his deconversion a year and a half prior when he devoted himself to logic. Rational thought is the enemy of faith, as I've pointed out to you several times already (and you have ignored as many times). Well, actually, he had started having his doubts 10 years prior, so Dr. Sagan did not cause anything here.It's been two years. I wonder where his head is now. Not being a member, I can't see when his 85th message was posted.Though there is an interesting quote of Bertrand Russell I encountered some years ago that may shed some light. From memory:

quote:

---

When a Catholic becomes a freethinker, he becomes an atheist. But when a Protestant becomes a freethinker, he merely founds a new religion.

---

You see, to a Catholic, there is only one True Universal Church; outside of the Church there's only heresy. But the history of Protestantism is one of one schism after another, such that when members of one church came to disagree on some minor point of theology, they would split off and form their own church. The pattern of repeated splintering of Protestant denominations is so striking that former ber-fundamentalist Ed Babinski drew a cartoon of an accurate evolutionary tree of Christianity with the statement, parodying standard creationist clap-trap, that the sheer complexity of the tree is proof that there could not have been a single "Christ event".Though now ironically with fundamentalist Christianity we find them embracing the Catholic view that the only alternative to their theology is atheism. And that is what I've been trying to warn you about, despite your selective blindness.You must have been doing some heavy-duty cherry-picking there. None of those testimonials are on the first page of that section, http://www.ex-christian.net/...timonies-of-former-christians. You were being quite selective in which ones you cited, even though you misrepresented them.Not counting the 8 pinned threads, there are 30 threads before we arrive at marmot's on Page 2. Another 125 before we arrive at Gunvalk's on Page 9. That was on 16 Dec 2011. seeboh's was on 22 Dec 2010, TheSecretAtheist's on 17 Oct 2010, Thalia's on 27 May 2011, and AaronOz' on 09 June 2011. You certainly would not have gone through all those hundreds of testimonials in order to have chosen these six that you quote-mined.Instead, I propose that we start from page one and go through each one to see what they have to say. No more of your cherry-picking and quote-mining.And go out and find those multitudes of atheists who deconverted just so they could sleep around. You believe that it's such a primal reason, you should be tripping over them everywhere you turn! I already gave you one!Though what I have found is that fundamentalists have no problem abandoning the Ten Commandments without pretending to become atheists. Creationism being based on lies is evidence of that. And there's a mega-church with a 15,000-strong singles ministry, the majority of which are women (including a sizable age 40-60 cohort). They're some of the easiest lays in the county.

That's roughly the same situation Christianity was in with respect to Judaism in the early years after Christ, and is still in. So I guess Judaism wins out over Christianity? Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your criteria, which you chose because it helps you confirm your beliefs rather than because it has any worth.But in science these two philosophies have roughly equal merit when one assesses the evidence. Except that it *is* something we can find evidence for, and since extra dimensions have already been conceived it is obviously not beyond human comprehension. String theory postulates 11 dimensions, and it is hoped that the Large Hadron Collider may eventually find evidence for or against this possibility. The possibility that string theory is a more accurate model of our universe than the standard model is why nobody here thinks that one time dimension and three space dimensions must be all that is possible. As Arthur Eddington once said, "Reality is not only stranger than you think, it's stranger than you *can* think." Although it's hyperbole it does very effectively make the important point, and I'm sure many here on the science said embrace this view.Many here on the science side would also likely concede that very few things are truly impossible, but science focuses on what the evidence indicates. What you believe may not be actually physically impossible, but there is no evidence for any of it. Yes, of course, which is why science demands evidence, replicability and consensus. Really? So when you become ill you seek a minister rather than a doctor? You pray instead of taking your prescribed medicines? Well now you're just making things up. The Unitarians don't even accept the trinity. The Episcopalians allow gay marriage. And science has nothing against religion. Anyone who understands the nature of science knows that it can't take any position for or against much religious philosophy, and many in science are deeply religious and have no wish to eradicate religion, perhaps the most famous being Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome Project.The basic premise of this website is that the scientific method is the best way to understand the world around us, and it exists in part to examine the claim by those creationists who assert that the scientific method has brought to light evidence that supports their fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. That no such evidence actually in fact exists does place them in a somewhat disadvantageous position.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Correction, Methodists do not currently endorse gay marriage.

Marc-If your goal is to find examples of people who have become atheists because they learned about the ToE or because they wanted be sexually active without guilt, I have no doubt you can find examples. But I do think it is a somewhat narrow view to find a few examples and claim an explanatory variable for the whole. My suspicion is that when someone goes through a conversion event, any conversion event, there is a complex story around it that is lost when summarized by "I became X when Y happened...". Here is an example.My father in law went from being devoutly religious to an atheist about 8 years ago. His turning point came about a year after his wife of 40 years was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor, and the effects of a very long, painful, and degrading death were starting (almost three years of ever-increasing seizures, violent and profane outbursts, etc.). What is significant is that his church taught a version of the prosperity gospel, that through clean living, evangelism, tithing, etc. that people would not only have financial prosperity but also long and healthy lives. So while this was happening he went to talk to a church leader for counseling. He was told that while his faith was obviously strong, the fact that his wife was only getting worse was because her faith wasn't strong (it was a lot more complex than that, but I am trying to be brief). It goes without saying that he was livid.Now to be fair, when he talked to other church members, they all agreed that the pastor he had spoken to was out of line and insensitive. But (and this is the important part) no one disagreed with the message, just that it was worded poorly and perhaps too soon. So over the next few months he starting finding fault with his church's doctrine, then Christianity in general, and finally all belief in the supernatural.What I find fascinating about his ordeal is that he explained to my wife and I (we, at the time, were the only atheists he knew). that for decades he felt like he had a non-functioning part of his brain. He would hear something in church, and would think "Wait, that doesn't sound plausible..." but would immediately bury it and never think about again. These things were mysteries that he wasn't smart enough to understand. But during this tragedy all of it came under scrutiny. His wife's illness and passing was the starting factor, but it was a lifetime of being lied to that ultimately led to his rejection of belief.Now to go back to the beginning of this post regarding over-simplification. After he publically left the church he found out that his deconversion was periodically mentioned in various sermons. They would give him a one line description such as, "one member became angry at God when his wife got cancer, and thought he could hurt his creator by claiming not to belive in him". No mention of the other factors. I suspect that every single testimonial that is summed up by "I became an atheist when I learned about evolution in college" carries with it a much longer and more complex history.And on another issue, when you said: I cannot help but be reminded of the dozens of church testimonials I heard growing up about how they had hit rock bottom before being saved. In retrospect there seemed to almost be a competitivness. The farther they had fallen, the more "amens" and mushiness they would get from the parish. Edited by Lithodid-Man, : No reason given.

Hi Marc,You've got to stop making things up. That the Earth is ancient was first suspected over a couple centuries ago. In 1788 James Hutton wrote, "The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning,—no prospect of an end."Getting back to the topic, the reason there's a creationist shortage here has nothing to do with our reputation. Would that we were so famous, but the fact of the matter is that most creationists come here at random as the result of a web search or clicking a link somewhere else. Not only do fewer creationists join these days, just plain fewer people join these days. The reasons have nothing to do with anything this site is doing.--Percy