"though I could comment on all your bullet points ,I would be taking a lot of time that could be better used.
you make it increasingly difficult to discuss anything with you by piling up point scoring snippets. I think I covered enough for the time being."

My post was a deliberate attempt to demonstrate the worthlessness of petty point scoring. That you won't address it point by point says more about how you are willing to communicate your faith than it does about me writing it, and I didn't for a second believe you would address a word of it. You rather unfairly accused me of equivocation only to equivocate yourself - again.

My position is utterly clear: I believe science is the best philosophical system we have for learning the fundamental truth of the nature of ourselves and our universe. It's not perfect, but nearly everyone I have met in the course of my research have been generous, honest and genuinely curious, and are great people to spend time with. I don't believe in any gods, but I don't rule them out either, I simply require evidence of their existence and a single source is not enough to convince me of anything at all, let alone the existence of a supernatural being.

"after all Darwinism has shown us that we are only re -arranged pond scum"

Wow - what a sad and derisory view to take of the Earth and all that lives on it Pete, and I Darwin certainly didn't think that. Pond scum are actually rather wonderful and astonishing organisms, given they've been around for around 3 billion years. It's all good, all wonderful and we are an intrinsic part of the same ecosystem.


"CMI- is creation ministries international [creation.com]. I find most of my info there.",/I>

One book, one website. CMI is a complete joke, and there's way to much wrong with the content it presents to even start on here. It's pointless trying to refute as it is largely senseless in the first place. It looks credible though (check out their 'peer reviewed journal', it is a slightly sad, amateurish parody of the real thing)' stick a grid and wavey white lines on stuff and to some people it seems 'scientific'.

Pete's taken a kicking here, but he is an excellent teacher. Pete is a main of faith, and he rejects the modern world view born of and developed by rational enquiry since the enlightenment. He represents a large number of people who have adopted an absolutist world view that by it's very nature cannot be questioned, for the very act of questioning it is a heresy in itself; an adherent would destroy their own world view by doing so.

The real issue here is how can we deal with this sort of extremism? How do you discuss science with people who don't recognise ANY other system of philosophy other than their own as legitimate?

These people are causing real damage to our children's education, they are beginning to influence politics (especially in the US) and they are fundamentally dangerous people who cause real suffering, for instance the shutting down of abortion clinics in Texas last week, which is typical of the oppression the extremist elements of the Abrahamic religions visit on women. I don't see much compassion or love coming from these people, much less peace and understanding and there is an underlying aggressiveness in their rhetoric.

How can we engage in dialogue with people who don't want to listen?