Why we should not expect many if any Creationists

I expect that most Internet users have moved to social media and that bulletin board use is down generally everywhere. People used to troll the Internet for something to do and bulletin boards used to be a popular destination - now social media takes up all their time with texts and tweets and images and comments and Words with Friends.I just spent a few minutes at the NCSE Facebook page. Facebook members can add comments after each item, and there are also visitor posts, but I didn't see anything that looked like a discussion. The link to NCSC is tiny but findable near the top left, but their website has no bulletin board that I could see.A search for creation/evolution discussion boards didn't turn up anything - there used to quite a few. I used to keep a list a while back, but the links don't work now. Evolution Fairy Tale is still out there, but their activity level also appears diminished. The nature of the Internet is changing.--Percy

The Internet is certainly a much different place than before Facebook and Twitter and the rest, and people don't change. Certainly the demographics of the Internet have changed as it's become far less the realm of those of a technical bent and more that of, well, everyone. Evidently most people find social media a more engrossing diversion than they did bulletin boards. This seems a "creation versus evolution" specific observation, but it isn't just the creation versus evolution debate that is diminished. Discussion and interactions on all topics, controversial or informational or whatever, is diminisihed across the entire Internet. The democratization of the Internet has shifted the center of gravity onto social media.--Percy

Just to be sure, you're referring to your point that people have changed, not the Internet? I don't really see that myself. People as a group are pretty much the same 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. What's changed is that Internet now attracts a broad cross section of people instead of mostly techies. The access point of choice to the Internet used to be a computer with a normal keyboard and a relatively large screen, now it's a tiny screen with a tiny faux keyboard. This encourages short interactions, like text messages with perhaps an image or two. Well, yes, this is true. But it's a mechanism much preferred by the general population (who now dominate the Internet) compared to a discussion board.I'm working on taking the forum software in a social media direction, but real life continues to knock such plans on their heels. I'm working on a template-based implementation now, and once that's completed I can begin taking the software in the direction of libraries like Bootstrap and AngularJS, adding social media features at the same time. The idea is to have a social media site with a genuine and integrated discussion board.Advertising is the revenue model for Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/SnapChat/etc.-land, while discussion board software companies like dBoard (someday, God willing) and vBulletin and phpBoard actually sell or give away their crown jewels, the software. That's a bad model, but it's the one we're stuck with, so what's the best that can be done with it. I'm still figuring that out.--Percy

Being anonymous also allows you to not have to worry about people you know are crazy thinking about you. --Percy

Concerning Faith, I don't know what's going on with her lately. She engages in very little actual discussion, quickly descending into bald declaration and ad hominem, then abandoning threads in mid-stream.Concerning the state of the debate and whether we've won, I think there's a ways to go before we can declare victory. Overt efforts at teaching creationism in public schools have ended for the most part, but creationism is quietly taught in classrooms all across the Bible Belt. And I'd like to see the textbook fascists in states like Texas defeated.The public face of creationism has changed, for the most part going underground. The number of articulate creationists who could lie in public with a straight face are either dead or are much less active than they used to be: Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Steve Austin, Kent Hovind, Michael Bebe, William Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, etc. Without a strong public technical voice there seem to be many fewer creationists who can carry a discussion beyond an initial declaration of "facts".--Percy

If YEC's are as you say, that "they know what they believe and don't want to be bothered with the facts," then how can you criticize evolutionists for piling on with condescension?How can you be sure you're not just like the YEC's you criticize?--Percy

Most of us here are pretty set on following the evidence where it leads. I don't think mythological stories should be mixed with science. AT&T has EvC Forum on their "spammer" list and will not allow mail from EvC Forum to get through to you. I filed the necessary form to get off their list months ago, but they have neither fixed it nor replied. You could try filing a complaint with AT&T yourself.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

What does respecting sincerely held beliefs mean to you? Refraining from stating any position that is different from a creationist's? Accepting without challenge any statement based upon sincerely held beliefs? I hope not.Respecting sincerely held beliefs means not mocking them and so forth. Science constructs its theories upon a foundation of evidence. It is the opposite of giving stories in a book precedence over evidence, as telling anyone who disagrees to go soak their heads is the opposite of respecting sincerely held beliefs. One can only demand respect that will in turn be shared.--Percy

Hi Dawn Bertot,Summarizing your statements,

• Evolutionists are arrogant and pompous.
  ​
• Evolutionists do not follow the evidence where it leads.
  ​
• The scientific method ignores reason and science.
  ​
• "Creation and design are not religious or Biblical issues," but we can't reject the "Biblical explanation of creation" because we weren't there, and the Bible tells us how the science of origins works.

Were these imprudent and contradictory assertions meant to address the topic? Are you trying to tell us why creationists are visiting EvC Forum in much fewer numbers now? If not then you should be, because that's what this thread is about.--Percy

Dawn, I think you're in the wrong thread.--Percy

Four replies to one message? Well, at least this one addresses the topic: Let's me make sure I understand what you're saying. You believe creationists are visiting EvC Forum much less often because we divert their attention with detail, causing them to ignore the more fundamental issues.What do you think of the theory that both evolutionists and creationists are coming here less often because:

• EvC Forum is intended for use on desktop and laptop computers, not mobile devices. Most people are pecking away at tiny screens where EvC Forum is hard to use.
  ​
• Most people are using social media sites rather than destination sites like EvC Forum.
  ​
• Several developments, namely Dover, the move of ICR from California to Texas and their loss of accreditation, and a general change in creationist strategy that doesn't include tackling science head-on, have resulted in many fewer creationists being interested in debating creation/evolution.

--Percy

Dawn, you're not making much sense. In the same way that a Universalist is an adherent to the Universalist faith, not the inventor or discoverer, a creationist is an adherent to creationist beliefs, again, not the inventor or discoverer.This shouldn't have to be explained. It would be nice if you could contribute to the discussion instead of having to have it explained to you.--Percy

I thought it was clear I was asking if those are really your reasons why fewer creationists visit here now. Since you say they are I'll address them:

• Evolutionists are arrogant and pompous.

Are you saying there was a time when evolutionists weren't arrogant and pompous, that we've changed? Because if you read the old threads it sure doesn't look like they provide you any support.

• Evolutionists do not follow the evidence where it leads.

So you're claiming that evolutionists are so poor at following the evidence where it leads that creationists don't see the point of discussing with them anymore? Have evolutionists gotten worse at this since the heyday of EvC Forum back in the first half of the two thousand aughts? Seems very unlikely.

• The scientific method ignores reason and science.

So you're saying that the scientific method is so poor at reason and science that creationists don't see the point of discussing with people who use it? Has the scientific method changed since the heyday of EvC Forum? Seems very unlikely.

• "Creation and design are not religious or Biblical issues," but we can't reject the "Biblical explanation of creation" because we weren't there, and the Bible tells us how the science of origins works.

This is contradictory. You're saying that creation and design both are and are not Biblical issues.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Dawn,I wish you would stay on topic, but I'm not a moderator in this thread.Five replies to a single post is beyond the pale, please stop. I try to avoid discussions that seem to me to have little chance of progress.--Percy