I'm still waiting for you to give reasons to be a Creationist.
Fishface, et. al. Are you folks forgetting what subforum this is? If people like Inan can't help but evangelize here... just ignore them or direct them to the proper subforum.
USincognito, I think that in the case of Inan and many other creationists what we see is a general lack of understanding of the science (that's why so many of us often post the science stuff), but the
reason they feel comfortable in their ignorance of science is precisely because they feel their religious feelings trump any science presented.
Obviously this forum is not for the constant debate about various bible verses and exegesis, but purely religious topics are going to come up.
Inan can't tell you why she thinks people should become creationists because she doesn't really understand evolution or paleontology or geology enough to argue
against those things. What she does have is her exhortations to believe or suffer the consequences.
That brings the debate back around to her foundational assumptions, which makes it veer into religion more than science.
I think we would all greatly value her input if she were to provide information worth consideration from a scientific standpoint.
I personally have posted a significant amount of illustrations and scientific content as have many others here. Usually it is simply ignored by the Creationists and YEC's because they are unable to understand it enough to actually respond coherently. That's frustrating to those of us like myself who used to teach geology because we have spent years working out how to present the information in such a way that it can be grasped even by freshmen. (to the best of our abilities).
That is further evidence that, from the YEC and creationist side of the debate, it
isn't about the science. It's about denying that information they most assuredly do
not want to learn.
I don't think there's an atheist on here who wants to deconvert Inan for the sake of deconversion. Personally I don't want to deconvert a religious person. The whole basis of the debate is to get folks like Inan to stop
blindly attacking science. We simply want them to realize that science is much bigger than their misunderstandings paint it out to be.
We all love to argue or we wouldn't be here. But as scientists we would really like to argue over the science as you so nobly attempt to keep us doing. But after a while the YECs and creationists roll out their "trump card" of "God told me he dunnit" and the whole cycle starts again.
In a sense when we take the side-roads into religion it is precisely because the religious have attempted to
present religion as evidence and we are merely looking at the roots of their proposed evidence.
Sooner or later we may cajole Inan or another creationist to present data or a fact and then we can bring it back around to the scientific discussion.
If creationists would actually read what we write they'd realize that science doesn't want them to become atheists, but science can only work when we work within the constraints of natural phenomena and factors that can be sufficiently constrained to make a useful and workable model.
But, still, keep up the good work of trying to keep us focused. But I do think there's a place for the occasional religious side-topics, even here.
