Summations Only

No. The problem is that you don't understand what evidence is.Science is like a prosecutor at the front of the court room pointing out that the bullet that kiiled the victim has the same striations as the barrel of the defendant's gun, that the defendant's fingerprints are on the gun and that the defendant had gunshot residue on his hands when he was arrested at the murder scene. The jury can see all of that evidence and agree what it is. Even the defense attorney agrees on what the evidence is, though he is welcome to put forward a plausible alternative explanation.But you, as the defense attorney, are claiming that it isn't a gun, it's a toaster.Unless every objective observer can agree on what it is, it ain't evidence. Muslim scientists agree. Christian scientists agree. Atheist scientists agree. Ergo, they are objective. But you don't even agree with other creationists. Ergo, you are not objective.

Too bad that you refuse to focus on the science.Overall, I think most scientists are willing to let Shapiro say what he wants to say out of respect. No. He is putting on a Barnum and Bailey's act. He is trying to sell his ideas through showmanship, and you know what PT Barnum said about suckers . . .

Though I mostly just lurk here I get around to a lot of these types of forums. My general perception is that creationists have pretty much conceded the field. The forums which discuss issues of faith and science seem to be either:1. Dominated by members who pile on to demolish creationist claims. (FreeRatio; EvC Forum; ChristianForums)2. Dead - with no new posts for years.3. Closed. (Christian-forum.net)4. Hiding behind intentionally all-inclusive ToS that allow moderators to quickly ban anyone who disagrees (EvolutionFairyTale; Biblocality; Worthy Christian Forums)That's my impression anyway. Thoughts?

I think you are correct.I see ranting and whining, but very few attempts to make reasoned arguments.I'm guessing, but I suspect that this is due to the increasing role of the Internet. It has become quite hard to keep those children ignorant.Edited by nwr, : fix bad typo (I had buz instead of il)

No, we haven't "won" by a long, long shot. See "Texas Board of Education" for a prime piece of evidence.

Separate from (and including) the E. vs C. debate, I fervently hope this is true.

I thought, wow, nwr thinks Buzsaw has an agreeable impression of something about the Creationist Shortage issue. I must immediately see what impression that was.But no, it was Itinerant Lurker all along. I guess my worldview isn't shifting much today, after all

Speaking for myself, I don’t post much anymore because I simply don’t have the time. It takes time to adequately respond to the tremendous piling on that all creationists here must endure. A large part of the reason for that is the frustration evolutionists have that the general public in the western world isn’t adopting to their political, (atheist/liberal) views near as quickly as they expect. Science isn’t dominating politics as much as they’d like, atheists aren’t yet achieving prominent political positions. This is what science/evolution has become. Phrases like we’ve rebutted, or wrong about economics (from the opening message) shows that evolution has become exactly what it was predicted by many past, prominent evolutionists to become, a complete worldview, with all the unchangeable beliefs, all the faith, all the desire to forcefully convert others. Just like an establishment of religion that the U.S. founders prohibited.

I think it is largely about him. Most of the examples of why there aren’t many creationists here can be found in the way he is treated, since he clearly seems to be the one religious poster here with the most staying power.

In exactly the same way, this sums up why there aren’t many creationists here. Science is controlled by atheism, and scientists largely overestimate Christians regard for THEM. They don’t think about them enough to bother to post here.Christians are interested in the science that develops things like computers, medical procedures, chemical advances, etc. — things that promote better societies here and now, not the speculation of what happened millions and billions of years ago, branches of science that do little more than provide intellectual fulfillment for atheism. As countless thousands of Christians are saddened by forums such as these.

That may be another significant reason there aren’t many creationists here. The claim that creation and ID are every bit as much science as what is currently taught, is only a fraction of the entire creation/evolution debate. Your quest to examine that claim includes several religious sub-forums, including as one example The Bible, Accuracy and Inerrancy, located in the science forums, yet there is no sub-forum that examines the relationship between evolution and atheism. If that sub-forum existed, I believe I would have a renewed interest in starting threads and posting more than I currently do. Maybe other creationists would as well. Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

Very good! Not only Texas however, but the real world in general.

The "real world" is not defined by dogma, divine revelation, ancient tribal myths, or the voices in one's head.Nor is it defined by magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo or any of that other weird stuff.The real world is defined by empirical evidence.Science has a lock on that.

Coragyps, your false and demeaning message above demonstrates the reason for creationist shortage here at EvC.First off, not all of us believe that prayer and medicine are silver bullets to cures. Healthful habits and diets trump both of these,As per topic, the above type creationists are not what EvC needs or wants.That's not the problem with EvC's shortage of effective creationists. EvC's greatest, i say greatest problem is how they are treated when posting messages of substance, compared to the treatment of evolutionists.Too often, counterpart respondents resort to personal attack, demeaning remarks and unkindness in general.Admin, too often, attends to them, moreso than he does to evolutionists, sometimes in an unpleasant or unkind manner. More is required of them, especially effective ones, than to evolutionists.Perhaps I'm being too blunt but that's how I see it.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What precisely about the Texas Board of Education? Or did you really mean the Texas Board of "Education"? -- i.e., were your quotation marks misplaced?Basically, you just received two creationist Foxtrot-Uniforms over that remark which contained near-zero information. Similarly, that near-zero information inhibits anybody's ability to respond to them.Could you please be a bit more specific?