Why we should not expect many if any Creationists

I can agree with your assessment regarding Biblical Creationists. I see myself as a Cosmological Creationist. I believe that God initially created everything.The jury is still out on how He initially did it.That being said, I would think that a creationist by definition must believe in a Creator.AbE: Not to suggest that I don't see biological evolution as a definite probability, given what we know and how we can support the science. Edited by Phat, : add by edit

Personally, the reason that I prefer posting boards --specifically EvC --is that unlike twitter a written record of all of our many conversations is preserved as long as the site is maintained. Its the same reason that letters are more valuable than tweets or even phone calls. Too many people would rather talk than listen! Many are called(or tweeted) yet few are chosen!

Perhaps the addition of a "share on facebook" button might accomplish a few things.As for the idea that people have or have not changed, I am reminded of this internet meme:

Hello Dawn. Since you wanted a chance to present your point of view, i thought i might provide a framework, from Creation science found on Wikipedia. The article states that

quote:

---

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[8][9] Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts,[10][11][12] and is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly[13] and, even, as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[14]

---

They go on to say this:

quote:

---

Creation science is not falsifiable: An idea or hypothesis is generally not considered to be in the realm of science unless it can be potentially disproved with certain experiments, this is the concept of falsifiability in science.[68] The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.[69]

​

Creation science violates the principle of parsimony: Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions[citation needed]. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.[70]

Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.

​

Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth," the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded.[71] In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.

​

By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined.[72] Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a pseudoscience.[11][12][73][74]

---

Perhaps you could comment on these allegations and provide a valid counter-argument.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.