Steve Shaw
OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood.

But all I did was quote a couple of things you said!

What a shame after your recent reasonable behaviour.

You're so kind. Still, it's nice to see you back on form. You're still not getting it though are you? It's nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true, it's about how science works and what makes it different from religion. You seem to think that the point is to accumulate such a vast pile of evidence that no-one can deny the truth of a theory. No, that's how religion works; wave a book around and declare it to be true. Science works by diligently searching for something that will DISPROVE the theory. As long as that quest fails, the theory stands. It is impossible to say that the quest will never succeed. Taking that approach to religion gets you burnt at the stake.

Bill D
The reason so many of us debate you [pete] is that we worry about bad reasoning infecting others and affecting real studies and science.

With pete (sic), What You See Is What You Get. He states his position very clearly and sticks to it. He has found a comfortable place which relieves him of the trouble of having to actually think about anything. He simply goes to his creationist websites and looks up the appropriate answer. You are never going to persuade him of anything. People can see exactly where he is coming from and judge accordingly.

Steve, on the other hand, declares himself to be a scientist. He clearly knows a great deal but understands very little. The target audience is not the petes of this world but the middle ranks who possibly have a rather uncommitted attitude to religion and a rather distorted idea of science gleaned from popularising programmes like that Turin Shroud nonsense. Steve's misrepresentation of science as a sort of alternative to religion and his eagerness to resort to playground abuse is hardly going to win them over. I think he does more harm than pete ever can.