What evidence is needed to change a creationist

So your first, Michael Denton, now uses evolution to demonstrate purpose and the hand of God in the Universe (a review of a more recent Denton book provided by nwr)Your second, Dr. Louis Bounoure, was never "Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France" and never actually made that quote 300 Creationist Lies And your third, Arthur L. Schawlow, doesn't express any opinion on evolution at all, merely his need for the divine in the Universe - that's cool, it's the view of many theistic scientists (who have no problem with the theory of evolution) You wouldn't have another three, would you???

In other words, despite your claims, you are no scientist. Why then do you claim to be a scientist? Do you really believe that this constitutes EVIDENCE for Creationism??? Again, I have to seriously question your claim to be a scientist. I mean, fine, you may think that the results of abiogeneis research are sufficiently weak to make claims of a non-naturalistic origin to life plausible... but evidence for Judeo-Christian Creationism??? Do you want to think about that for a while? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.