Hi DMcG

Here are some thoughts that may or may not help in your discussion with pete.

"you may succeed in exposing my limitations in understanding,"

The limits of pete's understanding are the crux of this debate.

pete exposes those limits every time he uses terms such as "operational science" and "abiogenesis" which are not scientific terms but encapsulated arguments. There are plenty of observable things in paleontology. These are easily observable and in terms of arguments presented by Mr. Ham and his team. Pete said that "Creation Scientists" may speculate. That carbon 14 readings may have been changed by the flood. OK. If that were true we can immerse similar modern material for a year and compare them to samples that have not been immersed and to the samples which appear to be more than 6000 years old. You can prove or disprove that theory pretty much conclusively one way or the other. That is testable and observable science. pete might call that operation science. Those of us who are not "creationists" would simply call that science.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis vs creation is an ancient argument. It boils down to the following.

Which is more likely? Either life life was created from inanimate matter spontaneously or life was created by a thinking entity of such complexity that he could create a man and matter from nothing and work out all of the natural laws in his head without any know experimentation.

At best, creation is as dubious and unlikely as Abiogenesis.

pete is sure to have heard both of these arguments. He can read a definition of "science" and one of "the scientific method" for himself. He can experiment for himself. He doesn't. He chooses ignorance. He says evolution is not proven. Other than the mere fact of existence and Ken Ham's interpretation of Genesis. He does not even look for evidence of a 6000 year old universe.