Why we should not expect many if any Creationists

The fundamental reason for such a situation is that Creationism is false. The rules of this forum don't really support the use of any of the usual techniques for arguing without evidence and/or solid argument, so we really should not be surprised that most of the creationists arguing put up junk stuff. What else is there for them?A second fundamental problem is that by and large, the debaters we get here don't know much science. There have been some rare exceptions where the knowledge of science was impressive, but those exceptions are so rare that each such instance has been memorable. More often we get one trick ponies with a single PRATT who have to leave after making no headway here.

You can debate of course debate on social media, but the popular media really are not set up to encourage the kind of interchange that is really needed for serious debate, including allowing links to source documents and essentially any type of reference, quoting, and ready access to archiving and searching that are found on bulletin boards.Does that mean that people are different fundamentally? I think I am with Percy on this one. People are pretty much the same. It is just that their exposure to the internet has been different that what we grew up with. I am strongly disposed to value discussion and debate and other text based interactions based on habits I developed during the 80s and 90s.I also have a hard time considering not joining debate groups some kind of avoidance. The arguments we have here are of interest to a tiny part of the population. It is in real life and not internet life where there is little to no confrontation between creationists and evolution supporters. In fact, debates on this topic are such a small niche that it might be easier to question the mindset of people who participate than that of those who don't. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Lol. Yeah, that is true. But I don't think there is anything shallow about not being interested in Creo vs. Evo discussions, and in particular online versions of such discussion. People sometimes do pay attention to public debates on the subject, but even when famous people are involved there really is not much of an audience.This place was probably jumping just after the Dover v Kitzmiller trial, but that was ten years ago. If something like that were to get in the news again, we might see a new flood of debating enthusiasts.

I have not been here nearly as long as you have. But I spent considerable time reading through the archives before I made my first post, and I still peruse the archives on occasion. There is plenty to suggest that there has been a severe drop off in the number of creationist visiting and participating in discussion, sometimes heated than there are now.During my own time here, I do recall seeing and participating in more debates and with a larger number of creationist participants at the beginning of my time here than I do now. Interesting. I am not going to challenge you regarding what you have seen, but my own investigations suggest something different about the history of activity and debating on this board. Perhaps our definitions of debate are dissimilar. Yeah, I have seen plenty of that here. Apparently you missed it. Please forgive me if I don't participate in an insult swap with you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

ICANT, that sounds quite like a debate to me. Obviously there are no judges here, but often those 'tellings' include citing evidence, and critiquing the evidence presented by others. I would be quite satisfied to see more debate of that kind here. Perhaps we would see more of that if an event similar to the Dover trial would occur again. Surely you are not arguing that high school debates are the only kinds of debating or legitimate argumentation that might exist. Surely not ICANT.