Why we should not expect many if any Creationists

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

But Jar your wrong
It is the issue at hand
You are asking why we don't stay to discuss the issue
Besides that I know of Percys tendencies for certain people to not open threads, maybe due to the fact that he doesn't want issues discussed that cast a shadow on his positions
Dawn Bertot

Hello Dawn,
I'm not clear what your argument is except that you are claiming that the deck is stacked against creationists, and I have to agree with that. I stay here because there isn't any other place where these issues are on the table at all, even though my experience here is about as frustrating as it gets. In general I agree that the reason there are not many creationists here any more has something to do with that kind of experience of being treated like an idi-ot and having to play against unfair rules. And there's no point in even trying to make the case in the end, because this subject gets brought up only to "prove" creationists are idi-ots and the subject is closed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

One of the tactics of the secular fundamental atheist or skeptic is to subvert the mind of the simple, wheather that comes in the form of a committee a judge a board of some sort.
They equate creation Strickly with the scriptures and imply that if there are some differences in nature and what the Bible says it therefore must not be true
The next step is to represent it as unscientific, and untenable as science.
They do this by misapplying thier view of science.
My goal is to demonstrate that from every logical standpoint that by every standard of reason it is science and observable as any thing the put forward it is science
You can see this by my arguments and questions I put forward to them.You have to understand thier objectives overall. It's not simply to take the Bible out of places but to get rid of any idea or concept of God or design
They do this by ignoring or subverting the very basics of reason in relationship to the fundamentals of scienceOnce theve ignored simple rules and set up standards they don't follow it appears to the disinterested or simple minded person that they have established thier caseIf you keep the basics of reason in front of them we at least have a chance to present the actual factsDon't worry about thier intimidation tactics that just part of thier tacticsDawn Bertot

So Percy
Since there are not a hub of activity concerning some of the media reasons as to why Creationist don't participate do you mind the thread taking this direction
Still relating as to why there is not a lot of participation
Or would you prefer another thread
Dawn Bertot

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

Well I'll start a new thread to demonstrate that we have not gone away and are not afraid of the topic
Let's see if that works
Dawn Bertot

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.

Not a problem
See you in a while
Thanks for the platform

Since the first paragraph in your quotations are nothing more than an observation or assertion there is no need to reply to itSecondly it should be noted that falsifiabilty while useful is a human contivance and concept. The easiest way to show the limitations of it is ironically to falsify falsifiabilty.Heres a simple illustration. Things either exist or they do not. Since they clearly do no other information will Ever contradict or upset that fact. Hence existence is an axiomatic truth even if it is an illusion. Falsifiability can have no application ever where this kind of truth existsIt should be obvious to even the simplest of persons that no information ever will conclude that things Do Not Indeed exist.So Falsifiabilty is clearly limited and is not to be understood as applicable in these instancesFortunately design is of The same character as existence itself, it is a clearly demonstratable as an axiomatic truthI think we can develope this as we move along in any further discourseIt's not enough for the skeptic to mentally dismiss design, he needs to show that clear Purpose that follows from intricate design is not presentSince it clearly is design or creation if you will, it is on the same order of existence itselfYour simple task is to show in either instance these two things don't actually exist. Should be easy enough correct?Thirdly it should be noted that Biological Evolution theories are not testable if we are to apply the principle of falsifiabily.The obvious conclusion of BE is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes. Since there is no way to test that theory or falsify it in any respect, eitherYou are not doing science or the principle of Falsifiabilty is not required in some instances and it is therefore limited in its applicationEvery theory idea or investigation has a natural Conclusion even BE. Since there is no way to falsify it, either you are not doing science or its not necessary, to still do actual science.Creationism is on the same order of evidential investigation. It does not rely on the written Word of God for its investigations and ConclusionsHence it follows we are doing science in the very same way and coming to conclusions the very same way as that of the so called Scientific MethodBut if someone wishes to challenge my conclusions you free to do so, please have at itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

The third paragraph in you quotations is nothing more than sloppy assertions not worthy of a replyBut in fairness if you think I've missed something in it please point it out and I'll respond if there is a valid argument drawn from itDawn Bertot

Yes it is true that Creationism holds to absolute truths but those found in Natural Causes and explanations. Those truths are fixed because they are axiomatic in nature.Intricate design and clear Purpose must be demonstrated to not actually exists to be false. Since this cannot be done it is of the same axiomatic truth of very existence itself.But if you think your up to the challenge of demonstrating they don't actually exist, Please by all means do soEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your fifth and final paragraph is the worst form of baseless assertion, because it ignores any of the actual arguments set out from arguments posited by the science that supports the creationist principlesSecondly, it ignores that it cannot sustain and it ignores the limitations of its own standardsAs I have clearly demonstratedDawn Bertot

In conclusion it must be clearly stated there is no such thing as Super Natural Causes when establishing the validity of creation
The Who or how of creation is seperate from what reality will allow in its intial observationsThere is either evidence of creation and natural and logical ways to establish that fact or there are notSince I have clearly demonstrated there are it would qualify as nothing less than a scientific approachBut anyone is free too demonstrate otherwise if they so chooseDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I've been enjoying participation in discussion in this thread, but recent posts have increased my concern level, so since I haven't posted in a couple days I am announcing that I am shifting to my moderator role in this thread.I have these requests:

1. Please stay on topic. Creationism is not the topic. The topic is why we should no longer expect much creationist participation here.
   ​
2. Each participant should post no more than a single reply to any message. I understand that occasionally a second reply can be necessary, maybe even sometimes another, but the six replies to Message 98 (five of them within a 70 minutes period) are far too many.

I hope to return to normal participation in this thread soon.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change "message 99" reference to "message 98".