I wonder if Pete uses terms such as "Darwinists" and "evolutionists" because he needs to believe that this is some sort of cabal of scientists hell-bent on covering up the truth about the age of the earth? It's easier to believe you're being deliberately targeted than it is to believe that a disparate and open group of intelligent people all understand the evidence points to something that threatens his belief system. Pure poppycock of course; they aren't targeting his (or anyone else's) beliefs, it just happens the evidence doesn't point to Pete et al being correct. That's not to deny the existence of God, just there's that YEC is a fallacy born of ignorance and there is no overt signature of a creator. Heck, even some scientists might disagree with that as there are plenty of religious people practicing science at all levels of achievement.

Whilst Pete might describe me as a Darwinist or evolutionist because the evidence I have seen points to Darwin being correct and evolution as fact, I would suggest I was neither but a palaeontologist (avocational) and budding ichnologist, and studying these subjects is part of what I do.

We can't have a productive debate with Pete because he's not interested. It's all too easy to cry foul when people take issue with you head-on. In science this is called due process, in religion it's heresy.

Pete - I'll say this for the hundredth time: Find me a bony fish in the Burgess Shale. Find me a horse in the Solhofen Limestone. Find me a dinosaur in the Devonian. Body fossils. And none of that Paluxy rubbish - even most YEC's saw the folly in that years ago.