Pete: I can make mistakes, as it seems I did about the enigma code cracker, and I like to think that if I am shown something that I definitely got wrong, that I will own up to it. but not just taking someones unsubstantiated say so..

Pete, you rarely do, though. And only on points unimportant to the general discussion, such as the Enigma code above. One reason you probably regard things as being "unsubstantiated say so" is that when you *are* provided with "chapter and verse" such as research articles that directly contradict your own assertions, you don't bother reading and trying to understand them but just look for something on a creationist website that you can bounce back with. The rest of this post is copied from my last on "cosmos" since the sentiments are identical:

I know there's no point arguing with you, Pete, as you always look only to creationist literature for your information. I've time and again here gone into the actual evidence against several of your assertions, whether it be "carbon dating" of diamonds or "soft tissues in dinosaurs" but all you do is say that the articles or papers I've pointed you at are "too difficult as I'm not a scientist" and fall back on your creationist websites to provide "answers" that you can quote without actually doing any real thinking.

I've pointed out on several occasions where prominent creationists (eg Gish, Snelling, Woodmorappe, Hovind etc) have been caught out using arguments that they *knew* to be wrong at the time they used them (called "lying" anywhere else) and you simply won't look at the evidence for that "because they aren't here on the site to defend themselves"!!!

I even pointed you at articles in Christian papers showing that the general claims made by RATE and other creationists re their tests on diamonds and zircons contradicted RATE's own conclusions in their actual analysis....ie saying one thing in their internal literature but letting the general public believe they've said something else (again, called "lying" by most reasonable people).

But you ignore all this. You like to portray yourself as reasonable and tolerant, but in fact you're quite clever in the way you can be snidey and slippery in the way you use or ignore arguments.

I was particularly annoyed last time I went to the Crayside session when you sang your "Mungo Man" song which is a farrago of misinformation and untruths about age determination of bones found in Australia...but I sat there and politely clapped instead of standing up at the end and explaining what a lot of bollocks it was...I really wish I had now!