"I said that the research is coloured by worldview."

Ok Pete... I wasn't quoting you exactly. I was spelling out what many of your posts imply. If all the evidence by the majority of traditional scientists were wrong, "colored by worldview" wouldn't begin to explain their conclusions.

""the reply was, that he wouldn't waste his time. I would say that betrayed a fixed position, that did not want challenging."

Unless you read minds Pete, that is not likely to be the case at all. How could anyone possibly 'debate' a position that even you admit is faith based? In many ways, *I* ...and Stu.. and others... are wasting time, but we are not geologists whose careers goes way beyond such debates. Other geologist and various scientists have made all the relevant points in various places. He made a personal decision not to get involved.... who knows exactly why.
   His "fixed position" is NOT reading Darwin and simply nodding in agreement. His fixed position is the scientific method which leads in complex ways with ever changing **details**, all of which.. so far... point to billions of years of data. As I said above, most creationist claims amount to just weak attempts to dispute the main body of evidence.

------------------------------

And Greg... Pete certainly DOES think! I disagree with him on most points because of where he starts, but his efforts certain involve much thinking.
He is certain more interesting to chat with than to roll my eyes at YOUR simplistic insults.