Why we should not expect many if any Creationists

Percy
Putting aside your and the others arrogance
There are very specific reasons other than you have won, why creationist do not continue
It is equally true that you fellas generally do not follow where evidence leads
Arguments reach a logical empass and it has nothing to do with you winning the argument
As I've stated to many times to mention with no fear of contradiction
Creation and design are not religious or biblical issues anymore than how the universe began, is a biologicalmy based evolution issue
Origins, creation or so called natural causes fall to logical arguments based on logical allowances and reality
Since design or creation are one of only two possibiltes and design is very much a part of that possibility it can and is a very real scientifically established proposition
Here the argument ends and support begins
Specific revelation only supports that naturally scientifically established proposition
However Once we see that you are not actually following the evidence where it leads the conversation really ends
The rest is just commentary
You can't win something you can't answer yes even your arrogant pompous individuals
This however has nothing to with the misconception that design and creation are not science
Your so-called Scientific Method ignores the basics of reason and actual science
I'll be happy to restate these If need be
If you don't like the Biblical explanation of creation simply remember you and I were not there and trying to find how it happened will not work by looking at present factors. It will only move you backwards to a place where it still has no answer
But remember neither proposition is based INITIALLY on your so-called SM or even the Biblical account but it is based on what reality based logic will allow
This is why the Bible even claims the same in
Romans 1:20
While there may be a certain iorny in quoting the Bible, it's actually telling you what I am elaborately stating, it, the Bible is telling you how science, at least respecting origins actually works
Science it up if you want but at least proceed in a logical fashionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

A science that is logically and realty based has nothing to do with myth or stories
The fact of a designed and created universe is primarily reason based, on reality based reasons, set out in logical propositions
If any person thinks I'm incorrect please by all means let them step up an demonstrate otherwise
No one is afraid to debate it and you certain haven't won anything
You can simply demonstrate otherwise or you can't
I simply got tired of waiting for an actual debateDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now watch how I proceed anticipating anticipating your next objection
Youll say
It's not that we , the SM disallow creation but that it's simply not science based
Ah but as I have demonstrated it is more scientifically based than any proposition , principle or observation
Then you say we cant allow it in school because it's not science based
But as I have demonstrated to many times to mention it can only be science based, there is no other way to perceive it
When I am offered no argument to the contrary is there a reason to continue, really
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Only the simplest of minds would assume that disagreeing or disreguarding the Biblical account of creation, is somehow tantamount to disproving creationism, young or old earthThe same would be true of a person that disreguarded the totality of the general and overwhelimg evidence that supports the Bibles veracity
Not having all or some of the creation account in the Bible, which may not have been provided is not the same as demonstrating it as false, inaccurate or not to be believed
But to reiterate, that is a separate issue as To wheather creation is scientific or evidentialThe usual tactic of the evolutionist or skeptic is to get the creationist or design exponent tied up in some specific biological detail, unwaringly causing them to ignore any of the basics of the actual argumentsI am certain this explains the Whys of the fact that creationist do not remain
You have assumed you have won something you haven't even started
But if you think I'm wrong let that person step up
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Good advise Paulk about holding principles only when it is convenient.
Much like the principle of the scientific Method, holding only, when it is convinent to exclude actual evidence as to what constitutes science
Which further helps it and is convenient to exclude creation as science and how the creation principle is established
Well thank you Paulk for that sound advice
Are you following your own advice?Dawn Bertot

And BTW The thread title is inaccurate and nearly nonsensical
The term Creation does not refer to a group of people that believe it, it is a principle like that of gravity or design
It's a science ,based on reality and logic, not a group of people.
We simply discovered it we didn't invent it. We could not discover it if it we're not science based.
Dawn Bertot .Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

True
We discovered it
We are not it
To call a person a creationist is tantamount
To saying they invented it
Which further proves its a discoverable principleEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Really
So as an evolutionist if you are
Did you invent it or discover itBefore you declare that creation in the Bible or otherwise
are from the imagination, You first need to demonstrate that
is not a rational viable conclusion from the universe itself
Everything suggests it could be
You would then need to demonstrate that that observable principle
Is not deduced scientifically
I make these points to demonstrate that creation or design has nothing fundamentally with the bible it was around long before the written work
Creation can be nothing but scienceThen you can start on the Bible
Dawn Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well this post of yours addressed nothing that I actually said except to restate what I said
I believe I gave you my reasons as to why we visit less. Listing my reasons and not responding to them is hardly a response
Dawn Bertot

These are cursory reasons they have nothing to do with the real reasons we abandon the issues.
You do see a certain irony here correct?
Side tracking me from discussing the actual issue of creation and why we don't discuss it in greater numbers distracts from the issue of discussion of creation correct?
So is your goal to continue to down size our numbers or do you want to discuss creationism, as you folks call it
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Percival
I'm afraid it's you not making much sense.
You or I can't be an adherent to what is or is not.
I'm not an adherent to gravity, it simply is.
In the same way I'm not an adherent to observable creation
Principles, they either are or they are not.Now my purpose in making this distinction earlier was to point out that you fellas refer to creationism, as if it is something we invented ,something we just choose to believe and that it is not supported I'm any way by actual evidence.By ignoring and not responding to arguments in this area the so called creationist losses interest in discussing these issues and we simply find better things to do

I'll respond to your post 85 in just a few

Misrepresentation must be the watch word here, I said nothing of the sort.
Creation principles can in no way be Initially biblical or any other storied issues, they are simple observable facts, sustained by reason.The Bible simply reports what is, there's no contradictionIt's not that the SM has changed, its simply that it has never allowed what is actually science to be science. It implies that design is not present because we did not see the designer designing. But with the same breath states that all things are here by soley natural causes, having never observed the event of that alleged hypothesis
It has one standard for itself another for us.
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Question Percival
Is creation an observable fact in nature the same way Soley Natural causes are observable in nature?
Next, if creation is observable, is it science To deduce it in nature the same way you conclude soley natural causes, for the explanation of things.
IOWs if you did not observe the actual creation of the universe by Soley Natural Causes are you still doing science, or did your science stop when you started speculating
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You see Percy its not that you've won anything or that we are afraid to discuss the issues, its simply gets to the point that you can no longer answer questions put to you or you become contradictory in your responses
Then the subject closes
Dawn Bertot