I'm not defending Pete (that's Don's job), but I am suggesting tolerance. Scientists need to be able to deal rationally and coherently with people who (rightly) question why they think things are how they are. This isn't pandering to the irrationality of the creationist position, it's scientists distancing themselves from the creationist position by addressing it head on with fact, something creationists struggle with because they are shoehorning the facts to fit their preferred fiction.

So I don't think calling Pete a liar is useful (or very nice), because it's entirely possible that he believes what he's saying. I'm not saying that he's right, but I am saying that shouting at people and pointing fingers does not move the discussion onward.

I realise that Pete thinks I am a dishonest researcher, that my friends and colleagues in palaeontology are tarred with the same brush despite being the most honest and open-minded people I know. I do find that offensive as I said in a post way back up there. I also realise that sod all of what I've spent my time writing is ever addressed by him in any meaningful way, that he doesn't present any counterarguments that require anything but faith and ignorance.

But you have to try.